berlinarchaeology.files.wordpress.com...title: seleucid uruk: an analysis of ceramic distribution...

Seleucid Uruk: An Analysis of Ceramic DistributionAuthor(s): C. A. PetrieSource: Iraq, Vol. 64 (2002), pp. 85-123Published by: British Institute for the Study of IraqStable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4200521Accessed: 09-08-2019 15:03 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Iraq

This content downloaded from 128.197.229.194 on Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:03:53 UTCAll use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

85

SELEUCID URUK: AN ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC DISTRIBUTION

By C. A. PETRIE*

Introduction'

The ancient city of Uruk holds a pre-eminent place in the history of early state development in Mesopotamia during the fourth millennium BC. However, extensive evidence survives to indicate that the city underwent a very separate cultural flowering during the late first millennium BC, synchronous with the rule of the Seleucid successors of Alexander III of Macedonia.

Traditionally, the Seleucid period has been viewed as one of extensive cultural interaction (e.g. Colledge 1987), when the beneficial impact of Greek "Hellenism" was felt throughout western Asia (e.g. Droysen 1836; Tarn 1951). For this period, Babylonia, and particularly Uruk, are exceptional, both in the quality of preservation and the scope of work that has been conducted there. In addition to Uruk's substantial archaeological remains, we have the added survival of a variety of textual material relating to numerous administrative, economic and ritual activities. If we are to discuss processes of cultural interaction, it is imperative to attempt an integrated study of archaeological material and textual records, and although each type of evidence is limited by constraints of interpretation, a co-ordinated analysis will allow us to address various aspects of the impact of Seleucid domination.

The German excavators have published a wealth of material based on their investigations at the site, including an extensive ceramic corpus for the Seleucid period. The e most recent publications of this material have coincided with a shift in approaches to the interpretation of Seleucid rule in western Asia, where attempts to avoid the oversimplification of traditional explanations of cultural interaction are now desirable. An interpretation of the Uruk ceramic materamic material aiming to avoid generalised preconceptions is similarly possible.

In the Seleucid period, a number of ceramic forms with Greek antecedents were incorporated into the extant Babylonian assemblage. With an analysis of the Uruk ceramic material, types can be categorised on the basis of the place of origin of their antecedents; and we can discuss the presence and absence of these types in different areas of the site, and the frequency of each type in each of those areas. Using these data, we can then initiate discussion on the differences in the domestic and ritual use of ceramics, and on the significant change in the ceramic assemblage that occurred during the Seleucid period. The evidence of the ceramic material forms only a part of a very complex process of cultural interaction between the pre-existing Babylonian and Greek cultures that continued after the conquest of Alexander. When we have the preservation of both textual and archaeological material, we have the opportunity to observe the social impact of a foreign ruling power on a potent and traditionally conservative culture, in a way that these materials cannot provide individually (after Hall 1993: 142).

Analytical perspective: "Hellenism" and changing concepts of cultural interaction The term "Hellenism" is a modern one, and has been used to define the perceived essence of

an ancient Greek culture (Hornblower 1996: 677). It appeared as a result of the need to define the concepts of Greek culture expressed in the writings of later Greek and Roman authors and is

* University of Sydney. take this opportunity to thank Dr Pete Magee and Dr 1 Thisarticle is an expansion of one aspect of the author's Lloyd Weeks for their assistance and patience. Dr Uwe

undergraduate thesis submitted in 1997. I would like to Finkbeiner and the German Archaeological Institute have thank Professor Dan Potts for supervising the thesis and kindly allowed me to use and adapt plans and drawings encouraging me to submit this article for publication. I published by them (see Figs. 1-17). I would also like to would also like to thank Professor Amelie Kuhrt (University thank Dr Dominique Collon and the referees who reviewed College London) for reading an early draft and providing this article, as their comments helped make it more refined an invaluable critique. A number of colleagues at the than it otherwise might have been. Any errors remain the University of Sydney also provided helpful criticism, and 1 author's own.

Iraq LXIV (2002)


C. A. PETRIE

habitually coupled with the term and process of "Hellenisation". As a blanket concept "Hellenism" has traditionally encompassed ideals of Greek (mostly Athenian) politics, coinage, literature, architecture, urban planning, written history, philosophy, religion, technology, art, administration, lifestyle and language (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 184). However, from their appearance in the 19th century up to the late 20th century, perceptions of the meanings that should be attributed to the terms "Hellenism" and "Hellenisation" have changed substantially.

"Hellenism" was first used by Droysen (Hellenismus - 1836) as a definitive term for explaining Greek culture and its impact throughout subsequent history, and has been used in this sense repeatedly ever since (e.g. Peters 1970; Walbank 1981; Grant 1991). However, the paradigm represented by traditional "Hellenism" has received criticism for its Euro-Classical bias, which is felt to have been the product of a 19th century imperialist attitude towards the Orient (Said 1978; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 141). This bias assumes that the Orient lacked all desirable characteristics and was incapable of independent creative development, and has been criticised by scholars such as Said (1978), Briant (1990), Kuhrt and Sherwin-White (e.g. (eds.) 1987, and Sherwin-White and Kuhrt (eds.) 1993: 141-2). These scholars have proposed the use of a multi- disciplinary approach for the analysis of the processes of interaction between the cultures of the east and west. Their arguments have attempteid to reductionistavoid thendencies inherent in the traditional overarching definitions of "Hellenism" and "Hellenisation" that imply a distinct ethnic transfer from one culture to another.2 A simplistic definition of these terms will be inadequate in accounting for the diversity and complexity of cultural interaction displayed in the regions ruled by the successors of Alexander, particularly in the Babylonian core of the Seleucid kingdom. This being the case, we must define cultural interaction from a broader perspective. Just as there is the potential for observing Greek influences in Babylonia, we must also observe the preservation and independent development of the pre-existing cultures in the face of a Seleucid rule. Uruk will serve as our case in point.

Investigation Located close to the modern course ofthe Euphrates River in southern Babylonia (Fig. 1),

Uruk was first investigated by Loftus in 1850 and 1854 (Falkenstein 1941: 1; Boehmer 1991: 465). During the 20th century, 35 seasons of excavation were undertaken there, primarily under there, primarily under the

aegis of t he Deutsc Archaologische Archologische Institut (D.A.I.), Baghdad (seasons discussed in Boehmer 1991: 465; Finkbeiner 1987: 233; 1991a: 210; North 1957: 190-2). The excavations focused heavily on the early periods of the site's use, but also investigated a number of structures dating to the late first millennium BC (Finkbeiner 1987: 233).

The Seleucid period Finkbeiner has defined the Seleucid period at Uruk as stretching from 300 to 125 BC, representing

the most intensive phase of occupation during the later first millennium (Finkbeiner 1993: 7). Beginning soon after Seleucus aided in the defeat of Antigonus and won control of Syria, the Seleucid period at Uruk is not said to end in 141 BC with the seizure of Babylonia by the Parthian king Mithridates (or Arsaces; No. 140, A, Rev., 7-8, Sachs and Hunger 1996: 135), but four years after the annihilation of the army of Antiochus VII in 129 BC by Mithridates' successor, Phraates II. Beginning in 125 BC, Finkbeiner defines a Seleuco-Parthian period that stretches down to 50 BC (1993: 7).3 It is not precisely clear why these dates were chosen, but in the following discussion, when the word Seleucid is used, it refers to the period between 300 and 125 BC, maintaining Finkbeiner's chronology. In the publication of the stratified ceramic material, which will be discussed below, it is possible to differentiate between the material attributed to the Seleucid and the Parthian periods (Finkbeiner 1991b; 1992), and as the present analysis is not specifically

2 Similiarly, the termn Greek has been commonly used to and his successors, but it will be maintained here to prevent categorise and describe the Seleucid influence on many confusion. classes of material in the Near East, including ceramics. This Seleuco-Parthian phase could perhaps be best This term neglects to account for any complexity that may defined as early Parthian, but Finkbeiner has used the name have existed due to the interaction between the ancient to emphasise the continuity between the periods, attested Greek and Macedonian cultures as exemplified in Alexander in certain classes of material culture.

86



.--. , Antique Canal 0 5 10 km -*" _ ^ River

;. Sand Dunes

Fig. 1 Location of Uruk in relation to Frehat en-Nufegi and the Euphrates, north at the top (after Finkbeiner 199 la: Tafel 31).

concerned with Parthian-period material, it will not be discussed in detail. However, in a survey of the site that will also be discussed, Finkbeiner did not define a Seleucid period separate from the Seleuco-Parthian and the later Parthian periods (Finkbeiner 1991a). As a result, when the survey material is discussed here, Finkbeiner's categorisation of Seleuco-Parthian will be maintained, for consistency with the original publication, but where possible, material that can clearly be attributed to the Parthian period (post 125 BC) has not been included in the analysis.

Publication

Numerous studies relating to the Seleucid period have been undertaken, particularly on religious architecture, inscriptions, clay figurines, cuneiform texts and clay bullae.4 These analyses have provided a vivid picture of ritual and administrative practices, but do not attempt to correlate their results with material from the residential areas or the burials.

4Religious architecture: e.g. Falkenstein (1941); Heinrich (1986); van der Spek (1987); Sherwin-White and Kuhrt (1982); Downey (1988); Sherwin-White and Kuhrt (1993). (1993); Wallenfels (1993; 1994). Figurines: e.g. Ziegler( 1962); Cuneiform texts and inscriptions: e.g. Falkenstein (1941); Wrede (1990; 1991). Clay bullae: e.g. Rostovtzeff (1932); Sarkisian (1974); Doty (1977; 1988); Funck (1984); Oelsner Sherwin-White and Kuhrt (1993); Wallenfels (1994).

87


C. A. PETRIE

The most recent phase of archaeological investigation at the site included an extensive ground survey of the entire walled area of the site (Finkbeiner 1987; 199 la). In addition, a revised ceramic analysis of the Seleucid- and Parthian-period use of the religious and residential structures (Finkbeiner 1987; 1991a; 1991b; 1992; 1993) and the graves (Finkbeiner 1982; Pedde 1991; 1995) has also been presented. We will be using this corpus of ceramics, to contrast the continued use of Babylonian types, with the adoption of vessel types displaying Greek inspiration.

Structural remains

At its largest walled extent, the site measures 3030 m north to south, and 2140 m east to west (North 1957: 196; Fig. 2). During the Seleucid period, the ancient E-anna temple and ziggurat appear to have been substantially rebuilt and continued to be utilised, but lost their place as the most important temple complex of the city (Downey 1988: 17, 33-4). In their stead, two new complexes rose to prominence, the Bit-Res temple and Anu-ziggurat for Anu and Antum, and the Irigal temple for Ishtar (North 1957: 197; Finkbeiner 1987: 233; Downey 1988: 15 ff.; Sherwin- White and Kuhrt 1993: 149 if.). This change has been linked to the replacement of Inanna by Anu as the most important deity of the city, and the transfer of the cults of Ishtar and Nana from the E-anna to the Irigal (Falkenstein 1941: 2 ff., 40 ff.; Downey 1988: 17, 28, 34). Although a change in the focus of worship is apparent, the most important deity is still Babylonian, and no evidence has been recovered for the importation of new cults.

Schmidt believes that stratigraphically the Anu-ziggurat is the oldest of the structures dating to the Seleucid period (Schmidt 1970: 60; Downey 1988: 19-20). The visible phases of the Bit-Red and Irigal have been attributed to one Anu-uballit Kephalon on the basis of two inscriptions: a cuneiform text in the Bit-Rae (dated 2 Nisanu 110 Seleucid Era/202 BC) (Falkenstein 1941: 6-7; Doty 1988: 97), and an Aramaic text from the Irigal (dated to 200 Bc)6 (Falkenstein 1941: 31; Rostovtzeff 1941: 514; Doty 1988: 97; Downey 1988: 28). This extant Bit-Rea apparently replaced an earlier building credited to Anu-uballit Nikarchos in Nisanu 68 SE (244 BC)7 [YOS I 52; Falkenstein 1941: 4-5; Rostovtzeff 1941: 514; Doty 1988: 96; Downey 1988: 20; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 150]. An even earlier Irigal is mentioned in an Anu hymn dated to 61 SE (251/250 BC: BRM IV 8; Falkenstein 1941: 34; Downey 1988: 28), and is also indicated by structural remains (Downey 1988: 28 ff.; after Heinrich 1934: 29 ff.).

Another religious structure, known as the Bit Akitu, was built outside the city wall (Finkbeiner 1993: 7-8), and has been given a Seleucid date on the basis of ceramic parallels (Finkbeiner 1991b: 538-40). A ritual cuneiform tablet describing the procession of Anu from the Bit-Red to the Bit Akitu in 61 SE (251/250 BC) attests to the existence and use of structures with these names during the reign of Antiochus II (261-246 BC), and before Anu-uballit Nikarchos's work (BRM IV 7; Falkenstein 1941: 45-9; George 1993: 137). All three of these new structures display adapted Babylonian architectural features (Colledge 1987: 145-6), emphasising a continuation of both Babylonian architectural and religious practices. It has been repeatedly emphasised that this profusion of large-scale building and renovation presents the overall impression of a flourishing religious centre, wealthy enough in itself or through royal support, to allow for these monumental constructions in traditional Babylonian style (Rostovtzeff 1932: 7; McEwan 1981: 193; Finkbeiner 1987: 233; Downey 1988: 45; Boehmer 1991: 474-5; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 155).

A number of other named temples appear in cuneiform texts, notably in references to city districts (e.g. in the district of the Lugalgirra temple; Doty 1988: 103; Falkenstein 1941: 52), and Falkenstein considers that his collected list constitutes only a fraction of the holy precincts in the city (Falkenstein 1941: 52). No further evidence for these structures has yet been found.

The final mention of Uruk in the Babylonian astronomical diaries is in the entry for 187 SE (125 BC), after the defeat of Antiochus VII (138-129 BC) by the Parthians (Sachs and Hunger 1996: No. 124, Obv. 3). However, a cuneiform contract dated to 108 BC indicates that the Bit-Re

5 The Seleucid Era will hereafter be referred to as 6 Both dates are during the reign of Antiochus III the SE; 61 SE=251/250 sc; after Parker and Dubberstein Great (223-187 BC). 1956: 20. 7 During the reign of Seleucus II Callinicus (246-225 BC).

88



Fig. 2 Plan showing excavated structures and fortification walls, north at the top (after Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafel 29).

and Irigal continued to be used after the Parthian seizure of Babylonia, and that the end of their use as temples must have occurred some time later (W 18568; Kessler 1984: 281; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 155).8

Although there are also textual references to a palace (bit sarri) (Falkenstein 1941: 52, 4h: 51, 3k; Jursa 1997: Nr. 18 n. 3; Kuhrt 1999: 452; called the royal office by van der Spek 1987: 72), no physical evidence for such a structure has yet been found.

In addition to the religious structures, stratified material of the period has been excavated from structures in areas U/V 18 and J/K 17/18, including both domestic deposits and graves (Finkbeiner

8 Hence Finkbeiner's use of the term Seleuco-Parthian to define the period after 125 BC ( 1993: 7).

89


C. A. PETRIE

1982: 155-62; 1992: 473-580; 1993: 9). Two tumuli at Frehat en-Nufeai, located approximately 3 km north of Uruk (Muller 1959: 27), have been redated to the 3rd century BC and contain unique collections of material which will be discussed below (Pedde 1991: 535; 1995: 150-2). Despite the extensive exposure at the site, no distinctly Greek architecture has been revealed, indicating that it may not have been present.

Epigraphy, terracotta figurines, cuneiform documents, clay bullae and numismatics Textual evidence indicating the presence of Greeks at Uruk is limited and vague. Only one

inscription in Greek has been recovered from the site; however it is not dated to the Seleucid period, but was found in the Gareus temple, which was built during the late Parthian period (Meier 1960: 104-14; Potts 1997: 291). A sole cuneiform tablet from the site mentions the name Antiochea-on-the-Ishtar-Canal (dated 19 Addar, year 41 SE/270 BC) (NCBT 1942, 1. 20, Doty 1977: 193-4). Van der Spek has posited that this may have been an alternative name for Uruk, perhaps used by Greek inhabitants at that time (van der Spek 1987: 73), but it has also been suggested that this may have been a Seleucid colony whose location is unknown (Doty 1977: 195-6; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 155), or the name for a satellite settlement rather than for Uruk itself (Potts 1997: 291). This will be discussed further below.

Seleucid-period terracotta figurines depicting Greek gods, goddesses and heroes, as well as musicians, have been recovered from Uruk in significant quantities, in both survey and excavation (Wrede 1990; 1991; Ziegler 1962). Greek influence is also apparent on the Babylonian figurine types (Ziegler 1962: 175), indicating the presence of a complex form of cultural interaction in the production and use of these items. Van Buren described this as "a wave of Hellenistic influence" in the wake of the Seleucids, in contrast to the lack of distinctive terracotta types for the Achaemenid period (1930: xlvii).9 Many of these figurine types have also been recorded in deposits at other Mesopotamian sites including Babylon, Nippur and Seleucia (Ziegler 1962: 175-88). A fuller investigation of the cultural significance of these figurines lies beyond the scope of this paper; however, it can be emphasised that the evidence of the figurines from Uruk and other Babylonian cities indicates that we are dealing with complex cultural interaction at this time.

The corpus of cuneiform texts from Seleucid Uruk covers administrative, astrological, economic, ritual and other subjects (discussed extensively in Oelsner 1986: 138-91), as it would have in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. The texts reveal very specific indicators of the Greek influence on style and economic practices. Seleucid-period economic documents display the widespread adoption of a particular type of eastern Mediterranean stamp seal (Wallenfels 1994: 3-4, 151). However, this process began during the Achaemenid period where there is evidence for an equal usage of cylinder, stamp and finger ring seals (Kuhrt 1999: 451; Collon 1996; Bregstein 1996). Although cylinder seals do not appear after 303 BC (Wallenfels 1994: 151), the "impression is one of gradual evolution, rather than rapid and fundamental change" (Kuhrt 1999: 451). The seals themselves display motifs from various origins, including pre-Hellenistic Greek motifs found on Babylonian glyptic, traditional Assyrian and Babylonian motifs, Hellenistic Greek types and Hellenistic Babylonian inventions (Wallenfels 1994: 145, 151; 2000: 336), many of which appear in the Achaemenid period (Kuhrt 1999: 451). These changes appear to be part of long term developments, but as Kuhrt points out, the "question of why this happens remains unclear" (1999:451).

The sealed cuneiform documents also indicate the adoption of Greek names by some Babylonians alongside the maintenance of Babylonian names (Sarkisian 1974; van der Spek 1987: 73; Doty 1988: 99-111; Wallenfels 1994: 151). In his analysis of documents from the Yale collection, Wallenfels noted the use of Greek names by fewer than 100 of the nearly 3000 named individuals attested for the period from 329-108 BC (1994: 151; 2000: 333). This equates to approximately

91In Wrede's discussions of the figurines discovered in the Wrede's figures show that the figurines of the Seleuco- Uruk survey, there is no category for Achaemenid figurines, Parthian period were over five times more common on potentially indicating the difficulty in distinguishing them the surface than those of any of the other periods (Wrede from Neo-Babylonian types; while the figurines from the 1991: 152), this could also be related to the scale of the Seleuco-Parthian period are listed as being by far the most Seleuco-Parthian occupation and its proximity to the surface. numerous of those collected (1991: 152, 159-64). Although

90



3% of those involved in these transactions. Only 26 of the persons so named have both a Greek personal name and patronymic, while 34 were "assimilated Babylonians", with Greek personal names and Babylonian patronymics (Wallefels 1994: 151). However, Kuhrt has stressed that the issue of name use is complex, and an uncertain guide to ethnic and cultural realities (1999: 452; also Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 151-2). The lack of consistency in the process of name adoption at Uruk has been demonstrated by contrasting the differential name adoption of the families of Anu-uballit Nikarchos and Anu-uballit Kephalon (Doty 1988: 99, 105, 111). While 14 of the 26 recorded members of the family of Anu-uballit Kephalon bear Greek names, Anu-uballit Nikarchos is the only one of the 30 recorded members of his family to use one (Doty 1988: 105). Interestingly, Anu-uballit Kephalon is known to have married a woman with a Greek name and patronymic, who may have been a Greek (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 153). This can be expanded further. Anu-uballit Nikarchos held the title s'aknu (governor)0 and had the name Nikarchos bestowed upon him by Antiochus II (YOS I 52; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 150-1). Anu-uballit Kephalon and his brother Anu-Belsunu are referred to as rab sa res ali and paqdu respectively, and are known to have inherited their titles from their fatheir father Anu-balassu- iqbi, who held both positions (McEwan 1981: 27; Doty 1988: 97-98). These two positions were the highest temple (administrative) authorities at Uruk (Doty 1988: 98; van der Spek 1987: 71; 1994: 604). On the basis of his role as saknu, it is possible that the bestowal of a Greek name on Anu-uballit Nikarchos was linked to his political role and social position, but he did not carry on this tradition in his family. The circumstances of the other Anu-uballit's acquisition of the second name Kephalon are not specified, but Greek names were used in his family, possibly related to his wife's ethnicity. Name adoption and social position would appear to be related, but the latter did not always imply the former. This adoption of Greek names has been used as an indicator of the "Hellenisation" of elements of the populace of Uruk (e.g. Sarkisian 1976; van der Spek 1987: 73; Doty 1988: 99-111; Wallenfels 1994: 151). However, rather than attributing name adoption to fashion or deliberate self-Hellenisation, Kuhrt has suggested that, as these individuals were all members of the propertied elite, they were seemingly "anxious to be assimilated to the ruling circle in order to preserve, or acquire, political rank" (1996: 50). This may be borne out by the name adoption policies of the family of Anu-uballit Kephalon, whereas with the family of Anu-uballit Nikarchos, we may be witnessing a different need for this type of assimilation.

A large quantity of "napkin ring"-shaped clay bullae have also been recovered for Uruk (Rostovtzeff 1932: 6, 24; after Jordan 1928: 66 ff.), in a form that is distinctive during the Seleucid period (Rostovtzeff 1932: 10-11). Their use became an integral part of the administration system, notably in the recording of transactions subject to direct Seleucid taxation (Doty 1977: 331-5). The coincidence of the appearance of the bullae corresponds to progressive changes in royal fiscal policy, beginning in 37/38 SE (275/273 BC) (Doty 1977: 330), and indicators from the Babylonian astronomical diaries suggesting the imposition of war taxes at this time (van der Spek 1993: 99). The significance of these changes in administrative practices will be discussed elsewhere (Petrie in press). However, while the changes to administration, particularly the processes of recording and sealing, reflect a progressive increase of Seleucid control and some stylistic influence on seal design, these are not universals and occur in a limited administrative sphere (Wallenfels 1994: 151; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 149).1"

It is significant that most of the official bullae seals found at Uruk are accompanied by the Greek inscription Xpeoqp)XaKuc6; OpXou (chreophylax of Orchoi [Uruk] - the Seleucid crown finance officer) (Rostovtzeff 1932: 23). The name Orchoe and a group called the Orcheni are also mentioned in Pliny and Strabo respectively (Nat. Hist. VI xxvii 31; Geog. 16 I 6). While the name Antiochea-on-the-Ishtar-Canal appears on a cuneiform text from the site (see above), we cannot be certain that the name refers to Uruk. It seems clear that the use of a derivation of the traditional

name of the city on administrative documents sealed by a Greek official, and the use of the name by some Roman commentators indicates the degree of continuity with the city's Mesopotamian heritage.

10 The name for official representatives of the royal ambiguous evidence for what he terms "The impact of government at Uruk in use already in the Achaemenid Hellenism", as they are of diverse origins, particularly from period (van der Spek 1987: 71; Doty 1988: 96). northern and southern Mesopotamia and Iran (Wallenfels

11 Wallenfels points out that the seals themselves present 1994: 150-1).

91


C. A. PETRIE

While the cuneiform texts were recorded in Akkadian, we cannot be certain of the language used on the parchments/papyri that were sealed with the bullae (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 149). It has been suggested that Greek, Aramaic or even possibly Akkadian, written in Greek or Aramaic script, were used on these sealed documents (Doty 1977: 331; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 149-50; Oelsner 1986: 472, n. 904). Aramaic had been the Achaemenid scribal language, and remained widely attested during the Seleucid period, predominating in Babylonia (Sherwin- White and Kuhrt 1993: 149).12 The use of Greek and/or Aramaic as the languages of administration can only be inferred on the basis of the change to the use of parchment or papyrus documents for the recording of some transactions. As the documents themselves have not survived, and cuneiform continued to be used, it is unlikely that Greek was adopted as a universal language for administration.

The same seal impressions appear on a number of cuneiform tablets and bullae, indicating common users in both media, and that the same same seals and/or individuals could be involved in different types of transactions (Wallenfels 1994: 150; 2000: 340).13 Wallenfels has suggested that different categories of documents were recorded in the two media (2000: 341), supporting the suggestion that the factor determining the recording medium was a transaction's susceptibility to taxation and not the nationality of the individual (Doty 1977: 333-4). This would account for the appearance of the same impressions in each medium and for the Greek names in cuneiform. Impressions identical to those on a number of Uruk bullae have also been found on bullae from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, indicating transactions taking place between Uruk and the Seleucid capital (Wallenfels 1994: 150). The numismatic material from Uruk further bolsters these indicators of economic interaction. Numerous coins from Babylon, Susa and Antioch-on-the-Orontes have been recovered, but coins from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris dominate the numismatic record of Uruk, from Seleucus I (305-281 BC) to Vologases V (AD 191-193) (Leisten 1986: 364-5). Local coins of Antiochus IV (175-164 BC) and Alexander Balas (150-145 BC) indicate that a mint producing bronze coins also operated in Uruk in the 2nd century BC (Leisten 1986: 326-7).

On the basis of the evidence at hand, Uruk appears as a vibrant Babylonian city and an active participant in the economic milieu of the region during the Seleucid period. The material remains provide evidence for the continuity of numerous Babylonian traditions, be they architectural, religious, epigraphic, administrative, linguistic or related to nomenclature. The changes that have been attested often indicate the continuity of developments that began in the Achaemenid period, such as sealing practices, or are particularly difficult to interpret decisively, such as the use of terracotta figurines and name adoption. Although it has been suggested that individuals with Greek names and patronymics in the cuneiform corpus of the period were Greek colonists (Wallenfels 1994: 151), doubt has been cast on this interpretation (Kuhrt 1999: 452). Also utilising the evidence for names, Sarkisian proposed that the use of Greek names equated with a Greek colony and a policy of assimilation begun by Antiochus III in 223 BC, and a subsequent influx of Greeks after 166 BC (1974: 499-500). This also has been queried by Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, who have suggested that while "the idea of an early Seleucid 'colony' at Uruk is perfectly in keeping with our evidence of general Seleucid policies" (1993: 152-3), there is "really very little evidence to support the notion that Uruk had a 'Greek' colony inserted" (1993: 155).

Ceramic material

The analysis of the ceramic material from Uruk can provide an impression of the use and disposal of vessels in a variety of settings across the site, and also identify the potential stylistic influences on ceramics that coincides with Seleucid rule.

It has been suggested that the Mesopotamian traditions of food preparation, storage and serving may have been substantially altered by the arrival of the Greeks (Potts 1997: 300). Detailed

12The use of Aramaic was widespread during the Seleucid 13 Wallenfels has also noted that there is variation in the period, as attested by its appearance on Asokan edicts in dimensions of tablets, and the number of seal impressions south Asia and at Kandahar, on inscriptions in Babylonia, and their locations, through time, place of origin and on inscriptions at Marissa in Palestine, and on boundary contents (Wallenfels 2000: 335). stones in Annrmenia (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 102, 149, 185, 194-6).

92



discussions of culinary habits traditionally utilise written records, precise contextual information, ethnographic analogies or residue analysis (Rice 1987: 211). However, for Seleucid Uruk, we must rely on the perceived use of vessels, in lieu of these other forms of evidence; an analysis of Greek influence on Babylonian culinary habits would require a separate study in itself and is beyond the scope of this article. What we can observe, however, is the appearance and integration into the ceramic tradition of Babylonia of an assemblage of ceramic bowls, plates, storage and cooking vessels that have antecedents in the Greek world.

Only one study has attempted a wide-ranging analysis of Seleucid ceramics (Hannestad 1983). In it, Hannestad proposed that a strong Greek influence on the pottery of a site reflects a correspondingly strong Greek colonisation, "i.e. that pottery reflects Greek settlement patterns" (1983: 84). As we have shown above, there is little evidence to support the notion of a Greek colony at Uruk on the basis of the other forms of material remains, so the present ceramic study will include an assessment of the validity of Hannestad's proposition using the more recently published ceramic data.

Aside from a small number of ceramic vessels that are considered to have been imported from Greece,14 the ceramics found at Uruk were all potentially manufactured on-site, as indicated by the discovery of pottery-kilns surrounded by numerous over-fired sherds, dating to the Seleucid period (Finkbeiner 1987: 239; confirming Hannestad's suggestion, Hannestad 1983: note 1023). These locally-manufactured ceramics appear in three ware types, a glazed ware, a common ware and an eggshell ware (Hannestad 1983: 102; Finkbeiner 1987: 235-9; 1991a: 109-10). Many of the refinements utilised by Greek potters, such as stamping, rouletting and the ring base, are not attested in the Uruk repertoire (Hannestad 1983: 104; note 1048), and we see the continued and refined use of Babylonian alkaline glazes (Hannestad 1983: 15, 104). The common Uruk forms are described as being rather thick in profile (Finkbeiner 1987: 235), indicating that both the fabric and the glazes were different from those used in Athens (Rotroff 1997: 10) and in other regions of the Seleucid kingdom (e.g. Hannestad 1983: 87-95). This evidence for ceramic production does not indicate any Seleucid-inspired changes to ceramic technology and processes of manufacture.

Hannestad observed that a number of specific shapes that appear across western Asia in the Seleucid period have Greek antecedents (Hannestad 1983: 83-120). Shapes such as the fish plate, Echinus bowl with incurving rim and various plate and amphora forms and their derivatives have been recovered from sites in Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Iran and as far to the east as Ai Khanoum in Bactria (Hannestad 1983: 85-115). This is also the case for a number of sites in Babylonia, particularly Uruk (Hannestad 1983: 102-3). In the light of Hannestad's suggestion that a strong Greek influence on the pottery of a site reflects a correspondingly strong Greek colonisation (1983: 87), the significance of the appearance of these shapes must be determined. The transmission of finished and unfinished objects is relatively simple to track, but the understanding of the transmission of style is inherently more complex. Hannestad's link between the Greek vessel types and the demarcation of an ethnic population does not account for the inherent problems in determining material expressions of ethnic identity (e.g. Hall 1993: 114). There can be no certainty that material culture was used consistently and continually in the active expression of ethnic identity (Hall 1993: 142), so the link that Hannestad makes between Greek colonists and Greek-inspired shapes should be questioned. Greek-inspired shapes are certainly present at Uruk, but as has been shown, other evidence for the actual presence of Greeks there is indecisive. If the link between Greek-inspired vessel types and Greek colonists is broken, then we are left with the incorporation of a series of foreign vessel types into what is ostensibly a local assemblage. With the assemblage of ceramics from Uruk, we have data on the distribution of specific types across the surface of the site and in stratified deposits from a number of structures. Using this, we can discuss the distribution of specific types at the site, the frequency of types in specific areas, and potential differences in the private and public use of types. This will also allow us to discuss the composition of the assemblage in a way that is different from the concept of a strong (or weak) colonisation.

14An imported fishplate, bowl with incurving rim and (Hannestad 1983: 102; Borker 1974: 43-4; Strommenger numerous stamp-handled amphorae have been recovered 1967: 16, 32; Taf. 10: 12-13; 25: 11; 55: 1-4).

93


C. A. PETRIE

Survey ceramics Between 1982 and 1984, an extensive survey was undertaken within the city walls across the

non-excavated area of the site (Finkbeiner 1987: 234; Boehmer 1991: 465). A surface collection was made from a grid of 5000 20 x 20 metre squares, with the ceramics being subsequently classified according to a site-specific, chronological type series (Finkbeiner 1991a: 5-9).15 The distribution of the material relating to this periodised typology has been used to display separate periods of occupation in different areas of the site, and then for hypothetical determinations of Uruk's size at various times (Finkbeiner 1987: 234). While there are similarities here with the system used by Adams in his various surveys (1965; 1972; 1985), at Uruk Finkbeiner has dated a single site via a refined and specific set of types known from excavated deposits at that site. The sum total of any misleading results from individual squares was considered to have had a minimal effect on the final result (Finkbeiner 1987: 235), and the Seleucid and early Parthian periods were grouped together in the analysis (Finkbeiner 1991a: 105). The survey methodology proposes to provide evidence for the entire city area due to the intensity of the collection process (Finkbeiner 1987: 235). Modern cultivation does not appear to have been a significant taphonomic process, as Adams has stated that "The Warka region is today (1972) completely devoid of cultivation" (Adams and Nissen 1972: 81). However, Finkbeiner feels that the distribution of the surface ceramics has been affected by erosion (1987: 234; 1991a: 41-3). Weathering is proposed as the cause of material appearing on partly vegetated and otherwise sterile areas of clay and sand, where it has eroded from the higher elevations of the site (Finkbeiner 1987: 234). These otherwise sterile areas were not included in the distributional analysis (Finkbeiner 1987: 234).

Finkbeiner's results indicate clear diachronic changes in ceramic distribution, varying between the Neo-/Late Babylonian, Seleucid/Early Parthian and Late Parthian phases (Figs. 3, 4 and 5). A Seleucid occupation layer across those areas of the site 15-16 metres above sea level has been proposed (Finkbeiner 1987: 239). This Seleucid/Early Parthian period occupation appears as a massive expansion to the northeast, east and south of the Neo-/Late Babylonian occupation (contrast Figs. 3 and 4). Even with the potential loss due to erosion, Finkbeiner estimated that 300 of the site's 431 hectares were occupied during the Seleucid period, including the temple areas, and that this shrinks to 200 hectares or 2 km2 in the Late Parthian period (Finkbeiner 1991a: 213).

The surface material particularly highlighted the hill range to the north of the occupied area, and this was designated as a potter's quarter, due to a predominance of pottery-kilns and over- fired sherds (Finkbeiner 1987: 239; 1991a: 110). The private houses excavated in square U/V 18 have been proposed as exemplars for the types of houses to be expected in the 60 hectare living-quarter area south of this northern hill range (Finkbeiner 1987: 242; 1991a: 110). The Seleucid/Early Parthian material represents 53.35% of the total collected for the site, over four times the quantity of Uruk period material (Finkbeiner 1991a: 77, Tabelle 2). This should be attributed to both the proximity to the surface of the remains of the period and the estimated scale of settlement at that time. During the Late Parthian period, the heavily-occupied northeastern area was abandoned and the settlement focused in the south, around the Gareus-Tempel (Fig. 5; Finkbeiner 1991a: 214).

While the survey associates the distribution of surface ceramics with areas of occupation, the same data can also be used to discuss differences in the frequency of individual types for the Seleucid period (Figs. 6, 7, 8 and 9). These types have been categorised on the basis of the origin of the antecedents of their form, and in discussion the terms Greek-inspired and Babylonian origin

'5The chronology of the types used in Finkbeiner's Uruk Larsa and Failaka (Finkbeiner 1991a: 105-14), and as such survey differs from those used in other surveys conducted should be considered as being very reliable. The work at throughout areas of ancient Babylonia (Adams 1965, 1972, Uruk and that of Wilkinson and Tucker in the north Jazira 1981; Adams and Nissen 1972; Gibson 1972; Wright 1981). (1995), have shown that a more refined dating of sites is These surveys were conducted over large areas, there was possible with increased knowledge of local assemblages. no consistency in the chronological indicators used by the Just how far this intimate knowledge of local assemblages different surveys, and many of the chronological indicators can be extrapolated into the analysis of the surrounding used have been shown to be unsuitable on the basis of the areas is yet to be examined. The work at Uruk could be material excavated on Failaka (Hannestad 1983: 101-2). used to prompt a reassessment of the diagnostic types used The chronological types used by Finkbeiner for his Seleucid- in the previous surveys, and potentially has ramifications Early Parthian period were correlated with excavated material for our understanding of settlement dynamics in the later from Uruk itself, and also with the stratified material from first millennium BC.

94



TABLE 1: Uruk survey ceramic types

Type Type Type Reference/ No. of No. of No. Type Designation Group Origin parallels Examples Squares

Plate w/ thickened interior rim Fish plate Hemispherical bowl Bowl w/ incurving rim Bowl w/ angled profile & outturned rim Bowl w/ flared sides & offset lip Imitation ESA rounded bowl

Plate w/ thickened interior rim Bowl w/ sharp outturned rim (V of T.6) Hemispherical eggshell bowl Eggshell bowl w/ flaring lip Imitation eggshell bowl w/ S-profile Bowl w/ rounded shoulder Bowl w/ rounded shoulder & stamping Bowl w/ rounded shoulder & rouletting Bowl w/ flat rim, S-profile & rouletting Thick-walled bowl

Globular pot w/ outturned rim Cook pot (Lopas) w/ glazed int. rim Cook pot (Chytra) w/ 2 bent handles Globular pot w/ engaged rolled handles Pot w/ rolled handles & furrows Amphora w/ thickset body & profile lip Amphora w/ wide flared rim & grooves Amphora w/ 3 part rolled rim & handles Globe amphora w/ simple folded rim Squat bodied amphora w/ stretch neck Amphora w/ stretch ovoid or squat body Pilgrim flask w/ loop handles Hemispherical lib w/ flat rim & hole Clay bell Mortar plate Conical bowl w/ internal knob Store jar w/ reinforced rim & lid ledge Small store jar w/ lip spout & lid ledge Store jar w/ notched handle on shoulder Pot w/ distinct lid lip Stamped decoration geometric or floral Stamped decoration piercing furrows

Type Number: Type Designation: Type Group:

Type Origin: Reference/parallels:

No. of Examples: No. of Squares:

B&P

CP

((.

A&F

U

SJ

Dec

G G B G G B P

G B B B B B B B B B B G G

G/V G/V G B B B G B B B

B B B B B B B B B

H.32; F.106 H.29; F.106 H.16; F.106 H.16; F.106? H.18; F.106 H.24; F.106 H.21; F.106 H.32; F.107 F.107

H.45; F.107 H.46-7; F.107 F.107; Ru.8:2-7 H.57; F.107 H.57; F.107 F.107; Ru.9:3 F.107

F.107; L.f.6:2 F. 107; L.f.7:1 H.63; F.107 H.63; F107 F.107; L.f. 16:3 H.63; F.108 H.36; F108 F.108 H.36-7; F.108 F.108

F.108; Ro. 122 H.38; F.108 H.41; F.108 F.108; L.20:4-7 F.108

H.67; F.108 F.108; L.21:9 F.108; Lf.8:1-2 F.108; L.f. 12:4 F. 109 F. 109 F. 109; Ru.ll F. 109

234 41 91 93 81 98 39 34 74 25 31

102 65 27 40 51 79

108 46 73 21 27 75

174 28 29 87

9

36 8

21 347

10 35 27 21

645 313 192

231 38 91 92 81 96 39 34 74 23 28 93 61 24 36 40 79

108 46 73 21 27 75

174 28 29 81

9 35

8 19

281

10 33 27 21 ?

277 167

as used in Finkbeiner 1991a: 106-10 Tafeln 167-98. as used in Hannestad 1983 and Finkbeiner 1991a w/: with. B&P: bowls and plates CP: cooking pots A&F: amphorae & flasks U: unusual shapes SJ: storage jars Dec: decorated types. B: Babylonia G: Greece P: Palestine V: Variant. H.: Hannestad 1983: vl F.: Finkbeiner 1991a L.: Lecomte 1993 Ru.: Rutten 1996 Ro.: Rotroff 1997: vl.

a total of the diagnostic sherds found in the surveyed squares. the number of surveyed squares with diagnostic sherd finds.

will be used to define the types. These have been attributed using Hannestad's work as a base, with refinements provided by the work of Finkbeiner (1991a: 106-9). When types found at Uruk do not appear at Failaka, parallels from the Babylonian sites of Larsa and Abu Qubur have been utilised (Lecomte 1993; Rutten 1996). The extensive publication of Hellenistic material from the Athenian Agora (Rotroff 1997) will be used to corroborate Hannestad's proposals for the origin of the vessels displaying Greek inspiration.

The survey data have been tabulated in order to display the numerical relationships between the ceramic types (Table 1). This will facilitate discussion of the proportional presence of these

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10a 10b lla-c 12 13a 13b 14

15a,b 17a,b 18 19 20 24a-b 25 26a-b 26c 27 28a-b 29a-b 30 31 32 33 34 35 36a-b 38 40a V.2a V.2b

Key

95


TABLE 2: Parallels for Uruk survey and stratified types with those shapes present in different areas at Seleucia

Uruk Selucia Uruk Type Name Type Archives Building Porticoed Street Stoa

Type No. (after Hannestad 1983) Origin (Valtz 1984; 1991; 1993) (Valtz 1991) (Valtz 1988) 1 Plate w/ thickened G 1991: f. l:16; 1993: f. 1:1 -

interior rim 2 Fish plate G 1984: f. 1:7-8; 1991: f.l:11, f.2:20 1988: f. 18

1991: f.l:2, 10, 12 3 Hemispherical bowl B 1984: f. 1:3-4;

1993: f.4:19-21

4 Bowl w/ incurving rim G 1991: f.1:3-6, 2:19; 1993: f.l:4, 4:16-18

5 Bowl w/ angled profile G 1984: f.1:6 1991: f.1:13 & outturned rim

10a Hemispherical eggshell B 1984: f.3:13-14 bowl

18 Cook pot (Lopas) G 1991: f.3:28-29 w/ glazed int. rim

19 Cook pot (Chytra) G 1991: f.3:26-27 w/ 2 bent handles

25 Amphora w/ thickset G 1984: f.2.12; 1991: f.2:17 - 1988: f. 19 body & profile lip

28a-b Squat bodied amphora G 1991: f.2:22, f.3:24-25; - w/ stretch neck 1993: f.6

29a-b Amphora w/ stretch B 1984: f.2: 11 ovoid or squat body

Type Origin: extrapolated from Hannestad (1983) and Finkbeiner (1991a); see Table 1 for references. B: Babylonia G: Greece P: Phoenicia V: Variant

types in areas of the site. The types have been listed in the order used by Finkbeiner, reflecting characteristics of both shape and function. The parallels cited by Finkbeiner and Hannestad are extensive and will not be repeated here, rather, the reference in Finkbeiner's publication is indicated. As has been pointed out, many of these types also appear at other sites, from the Athenian Agora in the west, to Ai Khanoum in the east (see Hannestad 1983: 81-120). To aid in contextualising the Uruk survey assemblage in Babylonia, parallels from the partially published assemblage from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris have been included (Table 2).16 To provide a context for the proposed Greek origin/inspiration of certain forms, parallels with the extensively published material from the Athenian Agora have also been included (Table 3). For Seleucia, only those types that have published parallels have been shown."7

In the survey, 34 vessel types with 12 additional variants, and 2 particular methods of decoration were defined for the Seleuco-Parthian period (Finkbeiner 1991a: 106-109), making a total of 48 different forms (Figs. 6, 7, 8 and 9). Types that were identified by Finkbeiner as being specifically Parthian have not been included, along with those that only have Parthian or Sassanian parallels.'8 While there are 48 different forms, Finkbeiner has grouped many of the type variants together

16 Many of the types found at Uruk have also been found in the E-babbar temple at Larsa (Lecomte 1993) and in the Parthian levels at Nippur ( Keall and Ciuk 1991). A discussion of the significance of these parallels and their distribution has not been included here, as an appropriate contextual analysis comparing the use of these types at different sites requires a separate study, and is beyond the scope of this article. A detailed analysis of the distribution of Seleucid- period material in the E-babbar temple at Larsa has been published by Lecomte (1993), and this will be discussed further below.

17 It is significant to note that far more Greek-inspired shapes have been published for Seleucia than Babylonian- inspired shapes (8 of the survey types compared to 3; see Table 3). What is clear is that 25 of the Babylonian-inspired

shapes found at Uruk have not been published as coming from Seleucia, while only three of the Greek-inspired shapes are not present (compare types from Tables I and 3). However, as the Seleucia pottery corpus has not been completely published, we cannot be certain if this reflects true differences in the utilisation of the vessel types or a preference for presenting the Greek influenced material in the publication of the excavated corpus. The findspots for the vessels shown in Table 3 indicate that there are clearly interesting combinations of vessels present in different areas at Seleucia, but as with the material from Larsa and Nippur, an appropriate contextual analysis for this material requires a separate study.

"8These include Finkbeiner's types 16a, b, 21, 22, 23, 37, 39 and 40b.

96 C. A. PETRIE



TABLE 3: Parallels for Uruk Greek-inspired shapes from the Athenian Agora

Uruk Athenian Agora Type Name Type Name

Type No. (after Hannestad 1983) (after Rotroff 1997) Cat. Nos.

1 Plate w/ thickened interior rim Plate: rolled rim 694-696 (v) 2 Fish plate Fish plate 709-733 4 Bowl w/ incurving rim Bowl: Echinus 993-1011 5 Bowl w/ angled profile & outturned rim Bowl: outturned rim 923-927; 943-947 8 Plate w/ thickened interior rim Plate: rolled rim 676-680 18 Cook pot (Lopas) w/ glazed int. rim N/A 19 Cook pot (Chytra) w/ 2 bent handles N/A 20 Globular pot w/ engaged rolled handles N/A 24 Pot w/ rolled handles & furrows N/A 25 Amphora w/ thickset body & profile lip Amphora: whl (wsw) 417; 424 (v) 28a-b Squat bodied amphora w/ stretch neck Amphora: whl (wsw) 424; 439 (v)

Key Cat. Nos.: the catalogue numbers designated by Rotroff (1997: vls. I & II) whl: wheelmade (wsw): West-Slope Ware amphora types (v): variant, but with indications of derivation

TABLE 4: Percentage of types and frequency for survey ceramics

Origin of Type No. of types/variants % Total Frequency %

Babylonia 34 71 2686 76 Greece 13 27 812 23 Other 1 2 39 1 Totals 48 / 3537 /

under one type number while others remain discrete. For coherence, we will follow Finkbeiner's groupings for the type variants, giving us a total of 39 individual types. It should be emphasised that these do not represent all of the available ceramic types from the site for this period, and this will be discussed further below with relation to the stratified ceramic material.

Two specific sets of percentages can be derived from the data in Table 1, the first a gross tally of types and variants differentiated by origin, and the second a differentiation of the frequency in the appearance of examples of types from a particular origin (Table 4).

Unsurprisingly for a pre-existing Babylonian city, by far the highest percentage of types (71%) and examples (76%) at Uruk were of Babylonian origin. However, the significant proportion of Greek-inspired types (27%) cannot be ignored. Importantly, the types that display Greek inspiration do not have direct antecedents in the Neo-Babylonian/Achaemenian repertoires. The selection of diagnostic types for the Neo-/Late Babylonian repertoire (Figs. 10-11; after Finkbeiner 199 1a: Tafeln 165-6) included a variety of bowl shapes (types 1-9), many of which have similar dimensions to some of the types from the later periods. Although the bowl with incurving rim (type 4, Fig. 6) shows similarity to Neo-Babylonian/Achaemenid ceramic forms (type 2, Fig. 10), it is distinct, and has parallels at sites ranging from Failaka in the south, to Ai Khanoum in the east, and Athens in the west (Hannestad 1983: 16-17, also Table 3 after Rotroff 1997). The Greek-inspired type 1 is the most common bowl or plate shape in the survey (Table 1). However, overall, the Greek bowl and plate types are outnumbered in their variety (5 as compared to 11 Babylonian types), and quantity (483 examples as opposed to 683). With the exception of type 9, all other bowl and plate types were distributed extensively across the northwestern area, as was the mortar, type 33 (Fig. 9; Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafeln 171-9, 187, 189). Types 26 and 40a were both found in quantity in the south and southwest area (Fig. 8; Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafeln 184, 191), and are both considered as Babylonian shapes. The distribution of the types in the survey does not appear to indicate that either Babylonian or Greek shapes were favoured in specific areas, rather that shapes of both origins appear in the same squares and areas (Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafeln 171-93).

97


TABLE 5: Percentage of ware types recovered in the survey

Ware No. of examples % No. of find squares %

Eggshell ware 6213 25 2069 41 Glazed ware 10884 45 3529 71 Olive-Ochre ware 7461 30 2593 52 Totals 24558 / (5000) /

The statistics on Table 4 are based on the collection of diagnostic sherds. However, the survey analysis also included the counting and sorting of the non-diagnostic pieces collected, according to wares (Finkbeiner 1991 la: 109-110; Table 5). Considering that 5000 squares were investigated, it is easy to understand why the frequency of the wares was estimated in their quantities in the field, as these counts were not intended to be a micro-census record of each collection sherd by sherd (Finkbeiner 1987: 234-5).19 So, while the proportions of the ware types are interesting, they are of limited significance. As with the vessel types, it can only be assumed that the ware types have eroded to the surface in a realistically proportional way. We see the predominance of glazed ware (45%), found abundantly across the site (in 71% of the survey squares). The fine eggshell ware forms the lowest occurring percentage (25% of examples in 41% of the survey squares), which may be the result of various factors. It should be pointed out that the eggshell-ware shapes form a relatively small component of the assemblage being analysed here (3 of the 39 types). However, the eggshell ware clearly appears in significant proportions and over a wide area (shown in Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafel 192).

The conclusions that can be drawn from this further analysis of the Uruk survey data are limited, but these data do indicate substantial differences in type presence in different areas of the site.

Ceramics from structures and graves inside the walls of Uruk An extensive assemblage of material from excavated structures, with varying stratigraphic

reliability, can be used in addition to the survey material. The material from Finkbeiner (1991b; 1992) will be referred to as being stratified to differentiate it from the survey material.

In his analysis of the Seleucid period at the site, Finkbeiner established a comparative chronology for the deposits in the different areas (Finkbeiner 1993: 7; after Finkbeiner 1991b; 1992). The phase before the Seleucid occupation is listed as Late Babylonian/Achaemenid (Schicht IV), running from 500-300 BC (Finkbeiner 1993: 7). The areas excavated on the site imply that the occupation in this period was minimal (Finkbeiner 1993: 7), a finding reiterated by the survey (Fig. 3). Surveys of cuneiform texts from Babylonia have shown that large numbers of texts from temple archives date from Cyrus II to Darius I (559-486 BC), the largest group coming from temple archives at Uruk; but they also show a significant drop in the number of textual records from the reign of Xerxes I onwards (486-465 BC; Stolper 1985: 10). These later documents mostly relate to private business, but Stolper states that the historical implications of this change in documentation are uncertain (Stolper 1985: 10). Any structural remains from this period are also likely to have suffered extensively as a result of the scale of the Seleucid-period occupation, but it does seem clear that the pre-Seleucid phase of occupation was less substantial.

During the Seleucid period (300-125 Bc), the Bit-Res enclosure and ziggurat, the Irigal, area U/V 18, the Bit Akitu and the tombs at Frehait en-Nufegi were all in use, and have produced ceramic material (Finkbeiner 1993: 7), although many examples from these areas are from the surface. It is important to note that the excavated remains from the sanctuary areas were predominantly recovered during the early campaigns at the site (Finkbeiner 1991b: 540-5). A more refined set of stratigraphic information was recovered from area U/V 18, and the Seleucid phase for the whole site is referred to as Schicht Ill-lib, using the phasing established for this area (Finkbeiner 1993: 7; also 1991a: 114).

19 ,... even with some collections which individually sum total of such misleading evidence would not affect the would give us misleading or insufficient information, the final result" (Finkbeiner 1987: 235).

98 C. A. PETRIE



The ceramics that we discuss originated from the - Bit-Res enclosure and ziggurat (Finkbeiner 1991b: 540, 556-64).

E-anna enclosure and ziggurat (Finkbeiner 1991b: 540-1, 565-82). Irigal (Finkbeiner 1991b: 541-5, 583-606). Area U/V 18, structures and graves (Finkbeiner 1992: 516-77; 1982: 155-62; 1991b: 475-80). Area J/K 17/18 (Finkbeiner 1991b: 546, 607-15, 619-25). These data are presented in presence and absence form, per area, along with the appropriate

catalogue numbers, after Finbeiner (Table 6). An indication of the frequency of appearance will also be shown. The material has not only been published according to the area and/or structure of provenance, but often according to the rooms within those structures. As a result, it is occasionally possible to present specific detail about the proportional presence of types with particular origin in each area, and the types that appeared together. Although space prohibits an involved analysis of the interpretation of room function within these structures and as the excavation was often incomplete, each structure will be attributed a primary designation. Three of the structures analysed are sanctuaries and the structures in the two other areas will be considered as residential units that contain graves. The two tumuli at Frehat en-Nufegi contained a very specific group of material that will be discussed separately. By utilising these designations of function, we can comment on the significance of the differences between public and private/ domestic use of ceramics, indicated by their appearance in sanctuaries and residential deposits.

For consistency, the types discussed in this area-specific analysis are the same as those used in the survey analysis. However, it must be reiterated that the survey types only represent a selection from the whole of the published Uruk corpus (Finkbeiner 1991b; 1992). These types were maintained as they appear to be representative of the assemblage, and particular types that are common, but not used in the primary analysis, will be discussed separately. For the Seleucid- period deposits, a total of 785 vessels were catalogued (Finkbeiner 1991b; 1992).20 This total included frequently-repeated examples of many of the survey types, including when they appeared in different areas, so this total should not be seen to indicate the existence of 785 different types in the initial catalogue.

The 39 different types used in this analysis are the same as those used by Finkbeiner for the survey and, where possible, the stratified types were cross-referenced to the survey types in the initial publications (Finkbeiner 1991a; 1991b; 1992). Finkbeiner's catalogue also listed a number of vessels that were described and correlated with the survey types, but were not catalogued or illustrated. Where possible these have also been incorporated into this study where appropriate.

It is important to note that of the types chosen for the survey, four were not found in the stratigraphic corpus: two of Babylonian origin and two of Greek inspiration. Also, one of the three most commonly appearing types in the survey, the pot with distinct lid lip (type 40a, Fig. 9), does not appear stratigraphically (compare Tables 1 and 6). The mortar plate (type 33, Fig. 9) is the second most common of the Babylonian shapes in the survey but is only recorded once from an area-specific context, on the flank of the E-anna ziggurat (Finkbeiner 1991a: 566). The absence of these types does not alter the overall proportions of origin of the types present, but does significantly alter the proportion of Greek-inspired types compared to the Babylonian types (Table 7).

These presence and absence figures indicate that a significant proportion of the ceramics used at Uruk show the appearance of Greek-inspired shapes (24% of the types selected) occurring alongside the use of new and traditional Babylonian shapes (69.5% of types). However, the presence of Greek-inspired shapes does not indicate a replacement of particular Babylonian types, as a large number of local types of all shape groups continued to be used (Table 1). These percentages only provide indications of the proportional use of types of different origin. It will only be when we have more synthetic analyses of excavated Neo-Babylonian/Achaemenid ceramic assemblages, that we will be able to discuss the significance of the adoption of the Greek-inspired shapes with regards to change or influence on vessel function.

20Catalogue numbers 1-352 (Finkbeiner 1991 b) and 631-1063 (Finkbeiner 1992).

99


TABLE 6: Provenance of ceramic types at Uruk by area with catalogue numbers

Bit-Rd E-anna

58/61/62 (5) 88/89/109 (3) 80(1) v-(2)

111/112 (2) 57?(2) 87(1)

121 (1) 84(3)

79 (1)

56 ? (1)

Irigal

138/139/143/144/151/154/169/175/189 (17) 132/172/181/185/199 (22) 148/174 (2) 136 (3) 188 ? (1) V-(3) 184(4) v ?-(2)

108 ?(1)

V-(1)

V-(1) 86/129 ? (2)

147/150/167 (4)

v-(3)

74 ? (1) 60(1) 67 (1)

54(1)

73 ? (1) ¢-(1)

B 8 G 5 0O Totals 13

141/157/158/178 (7) 85/93/116 (4) 156/165/168 (11)

142 (1)

V-(2) 90/110/115 (3) 160?/198 (4)

196 (3) 133 (3)

97 (10) 1-(1) V-(1)

1-(1) 159 (3)

10 3 1

14

11 6

1 18

U/V 18 Layers III-II; inc. graves

634/658/787/869/918 (5) 906/976/977/978/979 (5) 786 (1) 725/843/863/875/887(5) 885 ? (1) 693 ? (1)

830 (1) 893 ? (1) 673/920 (2) 736 (1) 708 ? (1) 743 ? (1) 705 (1)

756(1)

649/751/986 (3)

954 (1) 902 (1) 931 (1) 981 (1) 752/847 (2) 915 (1)

899 ? (1)

945 (1)

913(1)

755(1)

17 8

25

Key Type Numbers: Type Group: Origin of Type: Numbers: Explanation of numbering:

Frequency:

as used in the survey, Finkbeiner 1991a: 106-10 Tafeln 167-98. B&P: bowls and plates CP: cooking pots A&F: amphorae and flasks U: unusual shapes SJ: storage jars Dec: decorated types. extrapolated from Hannestad (1983) and Finkbeiner (1991a), see Table 1 for references. B: Babylonia G: Greece P: Phoenicia V: Variant. catalogue numbers as used by Finkbeiner (1991b; 1992). catalogue no. (number): direct parallel(s) and total quantity. V-(Number): type present & total quantity, inventoried items not catalogued. ?: possible variant. number of times that a particular type appears in Finkbeiner (1991b & 1992).

Type No.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10a 10b I la-c 12 13a 13b 14 15a-b 17a-b 18 19 20 24a-b 25 26a-b 26c 27 28a-b 29a-b 30 31 32 33 34 35 36a-b 38 40a V2a V2b Sub-Origin

Type Group

B&P

CP

A&F

U

Si

Dec

Totals

Origin

G G B G G B P G B B B B B B B B B B G G G(V) G(V) G B B B G B B B B B B B B B B B B

J/K 17-18

264/283 (2) 276 ? (1) 203 (1) 202 (1)

285 (1)

233 (1) 204-7(10)

248 ? (1)

263 (1)

Frequency

32 31

6 12

2 5 8 4 2

14 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 7 0

0

8 19

2 3 4 8 4 5

11 I

3 3 3

0 0 1

209

284(1)

5 4

10



TABLE 7: Percentages of survey types appearing in stratified contexts and their frequency

Origin of type No. of types/variants % of total Gross no. of examples % of total

Babylonia 32 73 111 52 Greece 11 25 96 45 Other 1 2 8 3 Total 44 / 215

A type that does not appear at Uruk, the fusiform unguentarium, has been noted as a common type in western Asia Minor, the Levant and Syria (Hannestad 1983: 86, 90) and is also attested at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris (Valtz 1984: Fig. 4; 1991: Fig. 1; 1993: Figs. 3-4), Babylon (Reuther 1968: Abb. 47) and Failaka (Hannestad 1983: Cat. No. 502). Uruk is the only Babylonian site of its size where the shape does not appear. However, Uruk displays all the other major types of Greek-inspired ceramics cited by Hannestad as being the most commonly-appearing indicators of a Seleucid colonial occupation (Hannestad 1983, I: 85). The most commonly-appearing shape at Failaka (Hannestad 1983, I: 15), the bowl with incurving rim (type 4, Fig. 6), is the only type to appear in all of the analysed areas, while the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, Fig. 6) is the most commonly-appearing bowl form, in both the survey and the stratified contexts. The fish plate (type 2, Fig. 6) is the next most commonly-appearing form in the stratified contexts, but is far less numerous in the survey. In Athens, the bowl with angled profile and outturned rim (type 5, Fig. 6) is the most commonly-appearing bowl type, particularly after 225 BC (Rotroff 1997: 156), but at Uruk it appears only twice stratigraphically. All these types, along with the larger plate with thickened interior rim (type 8, Fig. 6), appear in Rotroff's "Vessels for food service" category, rather than the "Vessels for wine service" (Rotroff 1997). The other Greek types present include various amphora (types 25 and 28a-b, Fig. 8) and cooking pot types (types 19 and 20, Fig. 7). The types of Babylonian origin that appear include a variety of bowl shapes (types 12, 13a, 13b, 14 and 15a-b, Fig. 6, 7), eggshell ware bowls (types lOa, Fig. 6), imitation eggshell ware (type 1 la-c, Fig. 6), Mesopotamian amphorae (types 26c and 27, Fig. 8) and various jars and flasks (types 29a-b and 30, Fig. 8). The Mesopotamian amphora is the most commonly appearing amphora type, occurring far more frequently than its Greek-inspired counterparts.

By observing the ceramics from each area individually, a comparative picture of presence and absence can be established. The major occupation in the Bit-Res, E-anna and Irigal relates to their use as sanctuaries. The potential for some residential use of these sanctuaries cannot be dismissed, but in the context of this study their basic status must stand. The areas U/V 18 and J/K 17/18 can only be used as a sample of residential occupation at the site, as there has been no comparative investigation of other residential structures to determine if there was potential variation in ceramic usage according to social class.

Thirty of the 53 published types from the Bit Akitu were collected from the surface, and only 3 are relevant to this analysis. This is not a statistically significant number; the ceramics recovered from this structure will not, therefore, be used in this analysis and have not been presented in any of the tables.

In contrast, the published material from the Bit-Res shows a greater number of types with more variation than those from the Bit Akitu, though the quantities for individual vessel types are still small. An example of the bowl with incurving rim (type 4, cn. 57, Fig. 6) and the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, cn. 58, Fig. 6), were found together in the same rubbish context (Area L 16 e3; Finkbeiner 1991b: 557). Two variants of the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, cns. 61-62, Fig. 6) were also recovered near an example of the squat-bodied amphora with stretched neck (type 28a-b, cn. 60, Fig. 8) (Area M 15 a/b3; Finkbeiner 1991b: 558), both Greek-inspired shapes. As it does in the other areas, the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, Fig. 6) is the type that appears most frequently in the Bit-Res. The other types present were found individually, and they include three examples of the amphora with flared rim and grooves (type 26a-b, Fig. 8), a storage jar with reinforced rim and lid ledge (type 35, Fig. 9), a possible eggshell-ware conical bowl (type lOa, cn. 56, Fig. 6), a squat-bodied amphora (type 29a-b, cn. 67, Fig. 8), a variant of the conical bowl with internal knob (type 34, cn. 73,

101


C. A. PETRIE

Fig. 9), a large plate with thickened interior rim (type 8, cn. 79, Fig. 6) and also a fish plate (type 2, cn. 80, Fig. 6). There is a noticeably higher proportion of Greek-inspired shapes (38.5%) than for the stratified material as a whole (24.5%).

Of the 13 types determined from the E-anna, only the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, cn. 88-89 and 109, Fig. 6), the fish plate (type 2, Fig. 6) and the bowl with incurving rim (type 4, cn. 87, Fig. 6), are Greek-inspired types. Three examples of the imitation Eastern Sigillata A (hereafter ESA) - rounded bowl (type 7, cn. 84, Fig. 7) were also found, indicating that occupation of this structure may have continued into the late 2nd century Bc.21 These are all small open shapes. The most numerous type from the entire area was the clay bell (type 32, cn. 97, Fig. 9), appearing ten times in different locations. In the clay bell distribution plan for the survey (Finkbeiner 1991a: Taf. 187), the shape appears mostly in the squares surrounding the sanctuary area, and it would seem likely that it was utilised in temple activities. Finds of Babylonian types included the bowl with flaring sides and offset lip (type 6, cn. 121, Fig. 6), the eggshell-ware conical bowl (type 10a, cn. 108, Fig. 6), and the stretched ovoid-/squat-bodied amphora (type 29a-b, cns. 90, 110, 115, Fig. 8). An example of the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, cn. 88, Fig. 6) and the bowl with incurved rim (type 4, cn. 87, Fig. 6) were reported together from the southwest flank of the ziggurat (P16 a2/b2; Finkbeiner 1991b: 567). The proportions of type origin for the E-anna (71.5% Babylonian, 21.5% Graeco-Macedonian, 7% Other) are different from those from Uruk as a whole (above, Table 7), with the Babylonian types assuming a greater proportion.

Of the four sanctuaries, the Irigal presents the largest number of types, and out of the 19 present, 6 types were of Greek origin. Finkbeiner has used the types present in the Irigal in a comparative chronological discussion with the material from U/V 18 (Finkbeiner 1991 a: 113-114). He has indicated a complete division of bowl, pot and amphora types between those used in U/V 18 Schicht 3, and those that appear in U/V 18 Schicht 2 and the Irigal (Finkbeiner 1991a: 113; Tabelle 3 and 4). A later date for the Irigal material correlates with at least one and possibly two reconstructions of the building during during the 2nd century BC (see above). However, while examples of the bowl with incurving rim (type 4, cn. 136 Fig. 6), bowl with flared sides and offset lip (type 6 Fig. 6) and imitation eggshell bowl with S-profile (type 1 Ia-c Fig. 6) have all been attributed to U/V 18 Schicht 3 (Finkbeiner 1991a: 113; Tabelle 3), they have all been found in the Irigal (Table 6). The bowl with incurving rim is the only one of these types that is not also found in Schicht 2 (Finkbeiner 1991a: 113; Tabelle 3), and the example in the Irigal was found in the cella (3.1.3; Finkbeiner 1991b: 588). Overall, the types present were similar to those found in the Bit-Res, however their quantities are substantially greater. A large number of fish plates (15 of type 2) were found on the surface, along with a variety of other types [types 1 (3 examples), 6 (2), 7 (3), 8, 25 (2), 26a-b (2), 28, 29b, 30, 31 (2) and 36]. Many types appeared in and around the Hauptcella (3.1, Fig. 15; from Finkbeiner 1991b: Abb. 3). These appear in groups, such as examples of the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, cns. 138-139, Fig. 6) appearing with the amphora with thickset body and profile lip (type 25, cns. 140-141, Fig. 8) and a bowl with incurving rim (type 4, cn. 136, Fig. 6), in debris from Parthian building in 3.1.3 (Finkbeiner 1991b: 588; 1993: Abb. 5). In the west corner, 3.1.4, examples of the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, cns. 143-144, Fig. 6) again appeared, now with a hemispherical bowl (type 3, cn. 148, Fig. 6), a globular pot with outturned rim (type 17, cn. 147, Fig. 7) and an amphora with wide flared rim and grooves (type 26b, cn. 142, Fig. 8) (Finkbeiner 1991b: 588-9; 1993: Abb. 5). In the room to the right or northwest of the cella, 3.2.1, two examples of the amphora with thickset body and profile lip (type 25, cns. 157-158, Fig. 8) were found, together with an amphoriskos with squat body (type 29b, cn. 160, Fig. 8) and a small storage jar with reinforced rim and lid

21 The origins and date of ESA have been extensively production of ESA, around 140-130 BC (Berlin 1997: 25). debated since the 1930s, but this material has been shown The presence of imitations at Uruk is significant, and relative to share close affinities with Phoenician semi-fine ware, dating implies that the associated occupation must date later leading to the suggestion that it was produced on the than the beginnings of production on the Mediterranean Phoenician coast (Berlin 1997: 25, with additional references). coast. There is also now a fixed date for the commencement of

102



TABLE 8: Number of types appearing in each area, distinguished by origin, with percentages

Origin BR % E % I % UV % JK %

B 8 61.5 10 71.5 11 61 17 68 5 50 G 5 38.5 3 21.5 6 33 8 32 4 40 O 1 7 1 6 1 10 Totals 13 / 14 / 18 / 25 / 10 /

Key Areas: BR: Bit-Res E: E-anna I: Irigal UV: U/V 18 JK: J/K 18 Origin: B: Babylonia G: Greece 0: Other

ledge (type 36, cn. 159, Fig. 9). In front of the cella, 3.2.2, two examples of the amphora with wide flared rim and grooves (type 26b, cn. 165, 168, Fig. 8), two pilgrim flasks (type 30, cn. 166, Fig. 8), a globular pot with outturned rim (type 17, cn. 167, Fig. 7) and a plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, cn. 169, Fig. 6) were found together. These significant groups of ceramics show distinct combinations of table and storage ware.

When the Irigal material is observed collectively, a distinct preference for Greek-inspired bowl and plate types is evident in the number of types and their frequencies of appearance. This is most notable with the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, Fig. 6), which appears 17 times, and the fishplate (type 2, Fig. 6) appearing 22 times, while the most numerous of the Babylonian bowls, the hemispherical bowl (type 3, Fig. 6) only appears twice. The picture for storage vessels is less decisive, with the amphora with thickset body and profile lip (type 25 and Greek, Fig. 8) appearing 7 times and the amphora with flared rim and grooves (type 26a-b and Babylonian, Fig. 8) appearing 11 times. The proportions of appearance of Babylonian ceramics (61%) are marginally the lowest for all of the sanctuary areas (Table 8), and this has partially been affected by the presence of the non-Babylonian, non-Greek types (Others 6%).

The ceramics from the structures and graves of areas U/V 18 and J/K 17/18 give a different impression (Fig. 13, from Finkbeiner 1992). Area U/V 18 presents the greatest number of types from any area at Uruk. Examples of 25 of the 46 types found stratified were present here, including a number of Babylonian bowl shapes that were not present in the sanctuaries (types 9, 10b and 14, Fig. 6). However, it is three Greek bowl and plate shapes that appear most commonly, types 1, 2 and 4, as they do in the Irigal (Table 6). Whereas in the Irigal large quantities of types 1 and 2 were found, in U/V 18 the quantities were lower, neither appearing more than five times. The Greek and Babylonian amphora and storage vessel types present in the sanctuaries were all found here with the exception of type 29a-b. Storage jars such as the jar with rim reinforcing and lid ledge (type 35, Fig. 9) and the vessel with applied notched handle (type 38, Fig. 9) were also only found in area U/V 18.

The U/V 18 material has been published according to phase, and while Schicht 2b has been designated as Seleucid, it has not been separated from the Seleuco-Parthian Schicht 2a in publication. Schicht 3 will be treated as the clearly defined Seleucid phase. The bowl with incurving rim occurs in the stratified contexts of U 18 el, Schicht 3 (type 4, cn. 725, Fig. 6) along with an eggshell bowl with flaring lip (type 10b, cn. 736, Fig. 6), a possible bowl with rounded shoulder (type 12, cn. 743, Fig. 6), a bowl with flat rim and s-shaped profile (type 14, cn. 756, Fig. 6), a globular pot (type 17, cn. 751, Fig. 7) and a globular amphora with folded rim (type 27, cn. 752, Fig. 8), all but the first being Babylonian shapes. Many individual types appeared in dump contexts in V 18 al, including examples of types 2, 4, 5, 9, 10a, 24a-b, 25, 26a-b, 28a-b, 30, 35 and 38 (Figs. 6-9). Four differently-sized fish plates (type 2, cns. 976-979, Fig. 6) were recovered from the entrance in V 18 al, Schicht 2 (Finkbeiner 1992: 533), and this phase also included examples of the amphora with three-part rolled rim and handles (type 26c, cn. 981, Fig. 8) and a globular pot with outturned rim (type 17a-b, cn. 986, Fig. 7), implying the continued use of a mixed Babylonian and Greek-inspired assemblage. While the Babylonian globular pot appears in both the Irigal and U/V 18, only one of the four different examples of Greek-inspired cooking pot shapes appears, unstratified in V 18 al. The proportions of Greek origin ceramics (32%) as opposed to Babylonian ceramics (68%) for the entire area is slightly different than the overall

103


C. A. PETRIE

figures for Uruk (24.5% and 69%), but the diversity of shapes would appear to indicate that the use of ceramics in U/V 18 was clearly different from that in the sanctuaries, with a greater variety of Babylonian shapes being attested.

Area J/K 17/18 includes a private house and an apsidal structure called a Mithraeum (Finkbeiner 1991b: 546). This area presents a number of types that were found in area U/V 18, but also three types not seen there: the rounded bowl derived from ESA ware (type 7, Fig. 6), the thick-walled bowl (type 15a-b, Fig. 7) and the chytra (type 19, Fig. 7). The fragment of the chytra comes from a sounding near the Anu-Ziggurat (Finkbeiner 1991b: 614), in its only excavated appearance. Many of the other types from this area are not well stratified, predominantly coming from the surface. However, three types were found in different contexts in K 18 c3, associated with the Mithraeum, examples of the plate with thickened interior rim (type 1, cn. 283, Fig. 6), the imitation ESA rounded bowl (type 7, cn. 285, Fig. 6) in its only residential area appearance, and a lid (type 31, cn. 284, Fig. 9). The selection of ceramics from area J/K 17/18 is small and generally poorly stratified. However, it is interesting that it presents types that were otherwise unattested in the residential sectors. Five of the ten types present were Babylonian, while four were Graeco-Macedonian, proportions of origin that are both unusual and exceptional.

The latest analysis of the Seleucid-period graves by Pedde has focussed on typology, contents and chronology (Emberling 1997: 170). Finkbeiner and Pedde have identified three developments in grave forms in the Seleuco-Parthian period at Uruk, from "bathtub" sarcophagi, which appear in Schicht 3 and 2b, to brick and pot burials, before the appearance of slipper coffins at the end of Schicht 2 (Fig. 14, after Finkbeiner 1982: 162; Pedde 1995: 152-99). These graves are not elaborate, with the slipper coffins themselves being decorated and, aside from the sporadic appearance of some Greek-inspired ceramics, the graves do not display particular Greek influence in either the form or contents. The range of ceramic types that appear in the graves excavated in U/V 18 are more limited and distinct than those in the structures. The biconical flask, which is not one of the survey types, appears in various styles in the graves found in Schicht 3, 2a-b, and I (Fig. 15, for example in Graber 274, 278, 280, 289, 301, 303, 304, 323, 336, 339, 341, 342, 345, Finkbeiner 1992: 522-6; and as shown in Finkbeiner 1993: 13). As an interesting example of the nature of grave contents, Grab 323 contained a variant of the bowl with incurving rim (type 4, cn. 843, Fig. 6), a globe amphora with simple folded rim (type 27, cn. 847, Fig. 8), and two biconical flasks (cns. 841-842, Fig. 16).

The tumuli at Frehat en-Nufegi The two tumuli at Frehat en-Nufegi present a marked contrast to the graves in U/V 18, both

in their scale, method of construction and contents. Buried beneath substantial earthen mounds, both the west and east tomb chambers were built of brick and encircled by a baked-brick ring- wall (west: Muller 1959: 27; Lenzen (ed.) 1959: Tafel 44; Pedde 1995: 140-2; east: Haller 1960: 26; Lenzen (ed.) 1960: Tafel 43; Pedde 1995: 147). The western mound was initially dated to the early Sassanian period on the basis of a stamped sherd (Strommenger 1967: 10; after Falkenstein 1959: 33), while the eastern mound was dated to the 1st century AD (Haller 1960: 30). Both have now been redated to the 3rd century BC (Pedde 1991: 535).

The objects contained in the Frehat en-Nufegi mounds are striking. In one corner of the east mound chamber was a Mediterranean-style handled wine amphora (Finkbeiner 1991b: cn. 289; Pedde 1995: 150) and another storage vessel with parallels on Failaka (Pedde 1995: 150; see Fig. 16, Lenzen (ed.) 1960: Tafel 44). Four silver casings for kline (or banqueting couch) were also found in this chamber, having parallels at A, Khanoum, Nisa, al Mina and Susa (No. 977, van Ess and Pedde 1992; Pedde 1991: Abb. 3a-b; 1995: 149-50). Curtis has pointed out that depictions of the kline appear in Parthian-period reliefs, and that ivory and gold thrones are used for the laying-out of corpses in the Shahnameh, possibly harking back to pre-Sassanian or Parthian burial practices (Curtis 1996: 236-7). The "turned legs" of the Frehat en-Nufegi kline also appear to bear similarities to the turned legs of the diaphros or backless throne. Curtis has pointed out that while the depiction of the diaphros that appears on Parthian coinage, may have been derived from its appearance on coins minted by Achaemenid satraps, the piece of furniture itself was modelled on the Greek and Hellenistic diaphros, although its precise origin is still disputed (Curtis 1996: 233).

104



The west mound chamber (Fig. 17, Lenzen (ed.) 1959: Tafel 45) contained a group of four ceramic vessels, one with a parallel from a grave mound in U/V 18, and another with parallels to vessels from Failaka, Tarut and Bahrain (Pedde 1995: 144). It is clear from the skeletal analysis that this tomb contained the remains of four individuals, one within each of the ceramic vessels (Pedde 1995: 144; Schaefer 1960: 31-6). Along with these vessels were found four iron strigils with partially-preserved gold coatings, with parallels from Ai Khanoum, and also Salamis in Cyprus (No. 797, van Ess and Pedde 1992; Pedde 1991: 531, Abb. 6; 1995: 146). The chambers of each tomb also contained a gold crown, crafted in the form of olive branches with leaves and olive fruit (Nos. 939 and 941, Van Ess and Pedde 1992: 86, 90). These crowns have many parallels, most notably at Vergina and Ai Khanoum (Van Ess and Pedde 1992: 85; Pedde 1995: 145).

The individuals buried in the Frehat en-Nufegi mounds are not considered to have been Greeks (Boehmer 1991: 473; Pedde 1991: 535; 1995: 152), although this claim is not based on any physical anthropological analysis. The grave contents are indicative of a very specific use of luxurious grave goods that indicates the availability of disposable wealth at Uruk, and the desire to have a suitable expression of status shown in burial. The ceramic vessels in the graves have parallels both inside and outside Babylonia, similar to many of the graves excavated within Uruk. However, the inclusion of the iron strigils in the western chamber, and a gold crown, with close parallels at Vergina and Ai Khanoum, in each chamber, are potentially indicative of the adoption of recognisable Greek/Hellenistic symbols of power by certain individuals. Anu-uballit Nikarchos and Anu-uballit Kephalon both had high-profile roles as senior officials and builders of temples, and were bearers of Greek names. Based on the number of factors indicating their exposure to the Seleucid rulers, and the absence of other similar candidates, it has been commonly assumed that the Anu-uballits are the most likely occupants of these tombs (Boehmer 1991: 473; Pedde 1991: 535; 1995: 152). This should not be considered as a definitive argument, as it lacks any textual or epigraphic confirmation and must remain as a tantalising speculation.

Discussion and conclusions

Babylonia was the first satrapy to be secured by Seleucus, was home to the "city of kingship", Seleucia-on-the-Tigris (Kuhrt 1996: 44), and remained the central hub of the Seleucid Empire (Sherwin-White 1987: 16). Although Uruk was one of the largest cities in Babylonia during the Seleucid period, none of the institutions viewed as being typically Graeco-Macedonian, such as a palace, agora, theatre and gymnasium, has been found at the site, and only one (Parthian-period)

Greek inscription has been recovered (Meier 1960: 104-14; Potts 1997: 291). In spite of this, the city was certainly active.

No decisive evidence exists for a Greek community at Uruk, and no evidence survives to show that a Greek was placed in control as governor there. However, indications of the imposition of tighter administrative and economic control comes from changes in the recording of some transactions (Wallenfels 1994: 151), implying an alteration to the existing methods of income collection (Doty 1977: 331-5), where certain taxes and crown land came more firmly under royal control. Name adoption appears confined to a particular social class, and may only have been used in limited contexts, so it is possible that Greek names were adopted by those aspiring to be assimilated into the ruling circle in order to preserve or acquire political rank (Kuhrt 1996: 50).22 The extant evidence for name adoption and use is insufficient for formulating a decisive hypothesis for the significance that it had in Uruk's society. There is also a marked variance between the methods of burial and the grave goods found in the graves at the site, and those in the tombs at Frehat

en-Nufegi where, as discussed above, Uruk's two great personalities, Anu-uballit Nikarchos and Anu-uballit Kephalon, may have been buried.

However, the analysis of the ceramic material presents a different perspective. It is clear that there were quantities of Greek-inspired ceramics used and manufactured in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC at a site which otherwise displayed indications of the continuation of Babylonian

22The use of both Graeco-Macedonian and Akkadian Macedonian personal names and vice versa (see Wallenfels personal names by the same individual, and the inconsistent 1994: 145, 147), emphasise the irregularities of use. naming pattern of Akkadian family names and Graeco-

105


C. A. PETRIE

traditions in the face of increased economic control by the face of increased rulers. Greek-inspired types have been recovered from all the major sanctuaries and residential structures so far excavated at the site, but this appearance is not consistent. The survey shows the clear utilisation of Greek- inspired bowl, plate, cooking pot and amphora types. The use of ceramic types traditionally associated with the storage, preparation and consumption of particular types of food and drink may well represent a very specific type of cultural interchange, where traditional Greek habits became popular (Potts 1997: 296, 300). However, the symbolic use of a vessel is difficult to determine (Orton et al. 1993: 227), and the danger in correlating the adoption of Greek ceramics with the adoption of Greek culinary habits lies in this assumption of the specific usage of the ceramic vessels, without corroborative scientific analyses. Although Mediterranean types may traditionally be associated with particular culinary and storage habits, there can be no certainty that this was paralleled in Babylonia generally, and at Uruk in particular.

We must assume that the stratified material will stand as being representative, and in doing so, we can observe that there is a difference between the types of vessels used in the sanctuaries and those used in the domestic contexts. The types favoured in the domestic contexts of U/V 18 present a greater variety of traditional Babylonian shapes than appears elsewhere, although there are fewer examples of each type. They include bowl types totally absent in the sanctuaries, as well as many Greek-inspired shapes, whereas the sanctuaries show a preferred use of Greek open shapes and Babylonian storage shapes, most notably in the Bit-Res and Irigal. At Larsa, it has been noted that pottery that is traditionally considered to have been domestic, was being "utilized daily in one of the holiest Mesopotamian sanctuaries" (Lecomte 1993: 21 ).23 Lecomte emphasised that the best parallels for Larsa temple ceramics came from domestic contexts at other sites (1993: 21), but for Uruk we also have evidence for the use of similar shapes in both domestic and ritual contexts, though in variable quantities in each.

The patterns of presence and absence of ceramic forms in the different areas of Uruk are significant, as they give a clear indication of the use and manufacture of Greek-inspired shapes, as attested at a site which would otherwise appear to have absorbed very little direct cultural influence from its Seleucid rulers. Various factors were clearly at work in the choice of ceramic vessels for particular areas. We lack knowledge of the social status of the individuals who utilised the excavated residential structures, and the status of those responsible for placing vessels in the sanctuaries may have been varied, so it is difficult to draw socio-economic implications for the use of ceramics from our data. However, it does appear that variations in the use of ceramic types and their frequency in different areas indicate differences in their domestic and ritual use.

The significance of the adoption of a number of Greek-inspired forms into local assemblages across the Seleucid Empire is not easily assessed. It would appear that the contention that a strong Greek influence on ceramics relates to a strong Greek colonisation does not correlate with the evidence from Uruk. The indications of ceramic influence do not coincide with other evidence that indicates a significant colonial presence. This emphasises that the processes of cultural interaction across the Seleucid Empire were highly variable, and cannot be accounted for by simplistic terminology. There may be validity in the suggestion that there was an impact on culinary habits, but until more information regarding the specific use of vessel forms can be obtained, this must remain as a suggestion with promise, as there is also abundant evidence for the continued use of greater numbers of types of Babylonian origin at Uruk. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to say that there was a "Hellenisation" of the Babylonian ceramic assemblage of Uruk, in the sense of a dispersal of Greek manufacturing technology or production skills. These are not in evidence. The ceramic material from Seleucid Uruk provides evidence of the dispersal of Greek vessel types, a dispersal of form and possibly function, but notably the differential adoption of those styles in different areas of the site.

The nature of the impact of Seleucid rule in Babylonia is complex, and this overview of the material from Uruk has shown that it is also complex within the context of a single site. The detailed analysis of the ceramic material is one step toward understanding the processes of material

23 These forms include a number that have direct parallels with the survey and stratified material from Uruk (Lecomte 1993: Figs. 5-18).

106



cultural contact and exchange occurring there in the final centuries BC. We can only hope that future programmes of excavation and publication will allow the surviving evidence relating to the Seleucid period to be used to its fullest extent.

Abbreviations

AUWE = Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka Endberichte, Boehmer, R. M. (ed.), von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein

BCH = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique BRM = Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan NCBT = Newell Collection of Babylonian Tablets, New Haven UVB = Vorldufiger Bericht iiber die von dem Deutschen Archdologischen Institut aus Mittein der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Gebr. Mann, Berlin

YOS = Clay, A. T., 1915, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven, Connecticut

Bibliography Adams, R. McC., 1965. Land behind Baghdad: a history of settlement on the Diyala Plain, Chicago. Adams, R. McC., and Nissen, H. 1972. The Uruk Countryside: the natural setting of urban societies, Chicago. Adams, R. McC., 1972. The Akkad survey. In Gibson, McG. (ed.), 1972, The City and Area of Kish, Field

Research Projects, Florida. Adams, R. McC., 1981. Heartland of Cities: survey of the ancient settlement and land use on the central

floodplain of the Euphrates valley, Chicago. Berlin, A. M. 1997. Between large forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic period, Biblical Archaeologist 60/1: 2-51. Boehmer, R. M. 1991. Uruk 1980-1990: a progress report, Antiquity 65: 465-78. Borker, C. 1974. Griechische Amphorenstempel von Tell Halaf bis zum Persischen Golf, Baghdader

Mitteilungen 7: 31-49. Bregstein, L. B. 1996. Sealing practices in the fifth century BC Murafsu archive from Nippur, Iraq. In

Boussac M.-F. and Invernizzi, A. (eds), Archives et sceaux du monde hellenistique, BCH Supplement 29, Athens, Paris: 53-63.

Briant, P. 1990. The Seleucid Kingdom, the Achaemenid Empire and the History of the Near East in the first millennium BC. In Bilde, P. et al. (eds), Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus: 40-65.

Colledge, M. M. 1987. Greek and non-Greek interaction in the art and architecture of the Hellenistic East. In Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. 1987: 134-62.

Collon, D. 1996. A hoard of sealings from Ur. In Boussac, M.-F. and Invernizzi, A. (eds.), Archives et sceaux du monde hellenistique, BCH Supplement 29, Athens, Paris: 65-84.

Curtis, V. S. 1996. Parthian and Sasanian furniture. In Herrmann, G. (ed.), The Furniture of Western Asia: Ancient and Traditional: Papers of the Conference held at the Institute of Archaeology London, June 28 to 30, 1993, von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein: 233-44.

Dandamayev, M. A. 1969. Achaemenid Babylonia. In Diakonoff, I. M. (ed.), Ancient Mesopotamia, Socio- Economic History, Nauka, Moscow: 296-311.

Dandamayev, M. A. 1992. Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia, Mazda, Columbia. Doty, L. T. 1977. Cuneiform Archives from Hellenistic Uruk. Unpublished Yale Dissertation. Doty, L. T. 1988. Nikarchos and Kephalon. In Leichty, E., Ellis, M. de J. and Gerardi, P. (eds.), A Scientific

Humanist: studies in memory of Abraham Sachs, Philadelphia: 95-118. Downey, S. 1988. Mesopotamian Religious Architecture, Alexander through the Parthians, Princeton University

Press, Princeton. Droysen, J. G. 1836. Geschichte des Hellenismus, 3 Volumes, Gotha. Emberling, G. 1997. Review of Boehmer, R. M., Pedde, F. and Salje, B. Uruk: Die Grdber. In American

Journal of Archaeology 101/1: 169-70. Falkenstein, A. 1941. Topographie von Uruk, Uruk zur Seleukidenzeit, Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig. Falkenstein, A. 1959. Zur Datierung des Tumulus. In Lenzen, H. (ed.), 1960, UVB XV: 33-4. Finkbeiner, U. 1982. Seleukidische und parthische Graber in Uruk, Baghdader Mitteilungen 13: 155-62. Finkbeiner, U. 1987. Uruk-Warka. The late periods, Mesopotamia 22: 233-50. Finkbeiner, U. 1991 a. Uruk, Kampagne 35-37, 1982-1984, die archologische Oberflachenuntersuchung (survey),

AUWE 4, von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. Finkbeiner, U. 1991b. Keramik der seleukidischen und parthischen Zeit aus den Grabungen in Uruk-Warka.

II, Baghdader Mitteilungen 22: 537-637. Finkbeiner, U. 1992. Keramik der seleukidischen und parthischen Zeit aus den Grabungen in Uruk-Warka,

Baghdader Mitteilungen 23: 473-580.

107


C. A. PETRIE

Finkbeiner, U. 1993. Uruk-Warka. Fundstellen der Keramik der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit. In Finkbeiner, U. (ed.), Materialien zur Archaologie der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit im stidlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet, Ttlbingen: 3-16.

Funck, B. 1984. Uruk zur Seleukidenzeit, Akademie, Berlin. George, A. R. 1993. House Most High: the temples of ancient Mesopotamia, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake. Grant, M. 1991. The Founders of the Western World: a history of Greece and Rome, Charles Scribners Sons,

New York.

Hall, J. M. 1993. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge University Press. Haller, A. V. 1960. 2. Die Untersuchungen am ostlichen Hilgel der Frehat en-Nufeai. In Lenzen, H. (ed.),

UVB XVI: 25-6.

Hannestad, L. 1983. Ikaros: the Hellenistic settlement, Vol. 2. The Hellenistic Pottery from Failaka, Text, Catalogue and Plates, Jutland Archaeological Society, Aarhus.

Heinrich, E. 1934. Der Stdbau. In Noldeke, A. et al., V. Vorlaufiger Bericht uiber die von der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft in Uruk unternommen Ausgrabungen, Akademie der Wissenschaften and de Gruyter, Berlin.

Heinrich, E. 1982. Die Tempel und Heiligtumer im alten Mesopotamien: Typologie, Morphologie und Geschichte, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2 Volumes.

Hornblower, S. 1996. Hellenism, Hellenisation. In Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. (eds), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 677-9.

Jordan, J. 1928. Uruk-Warka: Nach den Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft, Zeller, OsnabrUck. Jursa, M. 1997. Neu- und spatbabylonische Texte aus den Sammlungen der Birmingham Museums und Art

Gallery, Iraq 59: 97-174. Keall, E. J. and Ciuk, K. E. 1991. Continuity of tradition in the pottery from Parthian Nippur. In Schippman,

K., Herling, A. and Saber, J.-F. (eds), Golf Archaologie, Internationale Archaologie 6, G6ttingen: 57-70.

Kessler, K. 1984. Eine arsakidenzeitliche Urkunde aus Warka, Baghdader Mitteilungen 15: 273-81. Kuhrt, A. 1987. Berossus' Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia. In Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S.

1987: 32-56.

Kuhrt, A. 1996. The Seleucid kings and Babylonia: new perspectives on the Seleucid realm in the east. In Bilde, P. (ed.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (Studies in Hellenistic Civilisation VII), Aarhus: 41-54.

Kuhrt, A. 1999. Review of Wallenfels, 1994. In Bibliotheca Orientalis 56: 449-54. Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. 1987. Hellenism in the East, Duckworth, London. Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. 1991. Aspects of Seleucid royal ideology: the cylinder of Antiochus I from

Borsippa, Journal of Hellenic Studies 111: 71-86. Lecomte, 0. 1993. Stratigraphical analysis and ceramic assemblages of the 4th-lst centuries BC E.babbar of

Larsa (Southern Iraq). In Finkbeiner, U. (ed.), Materialien zur Archdologie der Seleukiden- und Partherzeit im sadlichen Babylonien und im Golfgebiet, Tibingen: 17-39.

Leisten, T. 1986. Die Miinzen von Uruk-Warka, Baghdader Mitteilungen 17: 309-67. Lenzen, H. (ed.), 1959, UVB XV. Lenzen, H. (ed.), 1960, UVB XVI. McEwan, G. J. P. 1981. Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia, Steiner, Wiesbaden. Meier, C. 1960. Ein griechisches Ehrendekret vom Gareustempel in Uruk, Baghdader Mitteilungen 1: 104-14. Mtiller, A. V. 1959. Frehat en-Nufaei: die Ausgrabungen des westlichen Hiagels in Lenzen, H. (ed.), 1959,

UVB XV: 27-9. North, R. 1957. Status of the Warka Excavations, Orientalia 26: 185-256. Oelsner, J. 1978. Kontinuitat und Wandel in Babylonien, Klio 60: 101-16. Oelsner, J. 1986. Materialien zur babylonischen Gesellschaft und Kultur in hellenistischer Zeit, Assyriologia 3,

Budapest. Orton, C., Tyers, P. and Vince, A. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Parker, R. A. and Dubberstein, W. 1956. Babylonian Chronology 626 BC-AD 75, Brown University Studies

19, Providence, R.I.

Pedde, F. 1991. Frehat en-Nufegi: Zwei seleukidenzeitliche Tumuli bei Uruk, Baghdader Mitteilungen 22: 521-35.

Pedde, F. 1995. Seleukidische und parthische Zeit. In Boehmer, R. M., Pedde, F. and Salje, B. Uruk: Die Grdber, AUWE 10, Mainz am Rhein, von Zabern: 140-99.

Peters, F. E. 1970. The Harvest of Hellenism: a history of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, New York.

Petrie, C. A. (in press). Registration, tax and the chreophylax: Developments in the Seleucid administration of Uruk and Babylonia, Journal of American Oriental Studies.

Potts, D. T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilisation: the material foundations, Cornell. Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: a sourcebook, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Rostovtzeff, M. 1932. Seleucid Babylonia: bullae and seals of clay with Greek inscriptions, Yale Classical

Studies, New Haven.

108



Rostovtzeff, M. 1941. The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Vols. I-III, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rotroff, S. I. 1997. The Athenian Agora: V. XXIX. Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and imported wheelmade table ware and related material, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Rutten, K. 1996b. Abfi Qubuir: Operation J. Late Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic Pottery from Ensembles III and IV, Northern Akkad Project Reports 9: 35-50.

Sachs, A. J. and Hunger, H. 1996. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia III, Diaries from 164 BC to 61 BC, Verlag der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna.

Said, E. 1978. Orientalism, Penguin, New York. Sarkisian, G. K. H. 1976. Greek personal names in Uruk and the Graeco-Babylonaica problem. In Harmatta,

J. and Komoroczy, G. (eds), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im alten Vorderasien, Budapest: 495-503. Schaefer, U. 1960. Anthropoligische Untersuchung der Leichenbrande aus dem westlichen Tumulus der

Frehat en-Nufegi bei Uruk-Warka. In Lenzen, H. (ed.), UVB XVI: 31-6. Schmid, H. 1960. Die Grabung an der Nordosteinschliessung des Bit Res. In Lenzen, H. (ed.), 1960, UVB

XVI: 13-22.

Schmidt, J. 1970. Uruk-Warka: zusammenfassender Bericht fiber die 27. Kampagne 1969, Baghdader Mitteilungen 5: 51-96.

Sherwin-White, S. 1983. Babylonian Chronicle fragments as a source for Seleucid History, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42: 265-70.

Sherwin-White, S. 1987. Seleucid Babylonia: a case study for the installation and development of Greek rule. In Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. 1987: 1-31.

Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis; a new approach to the Seleucid Empire, Duckworth, London.

Stolper, M. W. 1985. Entrepreneurs and Empire: the Murash' archive, the Murasd firm and Persian rule in Babylonia, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut Te Istanbul, Leiden.

Stolper, M. W. 1989. Registration and taxation of slave sales in Achaemenid Babylonia, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 79: 80-101.

Strommenger, E. 1967. Gefasse aus Uruk von der neubabylonischen Zeit bis zu den Sasaniden, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 7, Gebr. Mann, Berlin.

Tarn, W. W. 1951. The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. van Buren, E. D. 1930. Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria, Yale University Press, New Haven. van der Spek, R. J. 1987. The Babylonian city. In Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. 1987: 57-74. van der Spek, 1993. The Astronomical Diaries as a source for Achaemenid and Seleucid history, Bibliotheca

Orientalis 50: 91-101. van der Spek, R. J. 1994. Review of Weisberg, D. B. The Late Babylonian Texts of the Oriental Institute

Collection. In Bibliotheca Orientalis, 51: 600-5. Van Ess, M. and Pedde, F. 1992. Uruk. Kleinfunde II, AUWE 7, von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. Valtz, E. 1984. Pottery from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. In Boucharlat, R. and Salles, J.-F. (eds), Arabie orientale

Mesopotamie et Iran meridional de l'Age du Fer au debut de la periode islamique, Paris: 41-8. Valtz, E. 1988. Trench on the east side of the Archives Square, Seleucia 13th season, Mesopotamia 23: 19-29. Valtz, E. 1991. New observations on the Hellenistic pottery from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. In Schippman, K.,

Herling, A. and Salles, J.-F. (eds), Golf- Archaologie, Internationale Archaologie 6, Gottingen: 45-55.

Valtz, E. 1993. Pottery and exchanges: imports and local production at Seleucia-Tigris. In Invernizzi, A. and Salles, J.-F. (eds), Arabia Antiqua: Hellenistic centres around Arabia, Serie Orientale Roma: 167-82.

Walbank, F. 1981. The Hellenistic World, Harvester Press, London. Wallenfels, R. 1993. Apkallu-sealings from Hellenistic Uruk, Baghdader Mitteilungen 24: 307-24. Wallenfels, R. 1994. Uruk: Hellenistic Seal Impressions in the Yale Babylonian Collection, I. Cuneiform Tablets,

AUWE 19, von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. Wallenfels, R. 2000. Sealing practices on Legal Documents from Hellinistic Babylonia. In Perna, M. (ed.),

Administrative Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern Counterparts: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Naples, February 29-March 2, 1996, Paravia Scriptorium, Turin: 333-48.

Wrede, N. 1990. Katalog der Terrakotten der archaologische Oberfliachenuntersuchung (survey) des Stadtgebietes von Uruk (Uruk 35-37), Baghdader Mitteilungen 21: 215-301.

Wrede, N. 1991. Terrakotten und Objekte aus gebrannten Ton. In Finkbeiner, U., 1991a. Ziegler, C. 1962. Die terrakotten von Warka, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in

Uruk-Warka 6, Gebr. Mann, Berlin.

109


110 C. A. PETRIE

I 0 ~~ 0 0oo o o 0 0 0 0 o o

Gesamtplan der neu- und

sp.itbabylonischen Zeit AUWE 4 Beilage 30 ^ Q4000 _ Architektur

4 T groBflachige Grundrisse kleinraumige Grabungsbefunde

Keramik o Einzelbelege in Streulage -

./' flachig streuende Belege

Kleinfunde / r\ \ Rollsiegel 0 I Texte und lnschriften

A sonstige Kleinfunde , \ 3500 =I erschlossene Siedlungsflache

^v^^ il o^^ ° o % c/ 18

Bit Akit'

s d S Whnviertel / URUK-WARKA ) 10 ° SURVEY DES STADTGEBIETES

5000 : 1982-1984

°'It~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ 0 i s

A1 BCD E F 1G1H2 I. 2 K L| MN P0 R RST UoV1WXY jZ A B'|C'

Fig. 3 Distribution of ceramics from the Neo-Babylonian period, north at the top (after Finkbeiner 1991 la: Beilage 30).

*26

27

28

'29

30

31

32


Gesamtplan der seleukidis parthischen Zeit

Architektur

C groSflichige Grundrisse [] kleinraumige Grabungsbefu

Keramik

SELEUCID URUK: AN ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC DISTRIBUTION 1 1

sch- AUWE 4 Beilage 31

ande 2

,-<~. )~ j)4

N ^ ^-' ' 100 20 300 m 32

, alastJ - e 0 1

7ink IS j 15-

/, ~ -~:c-~,".<-- .... 31 I t i i3

Fig. 4 Distribution of ceramics from the Seleuco-Parthian period, north at the top (after Finkbeiner 1991 a: Beilage 31 ).


112 C. A. PETRIE

Gesamtplan der spatparthi- schen (und sasanidischen) Zeit

Architektur

(^ groliflachige Grundrisse

Keramik (nur spatparth.) c Einzelbelege in Streulage

//"-0 flachig streuende Belege / /-x relativ hohe Belegdichte

spatparth. sasanid. Munzen * o 1-2 Belege * o 3- 5 Belege r<8 c i uber 5 Belege

W - erschlossene Siedlungsflache

URUK-WARKA SURVEY DES STADTGEBIETES

1982-1984

0 100 200 300

I I I I

P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A B'

Fig. 5 Distribution of ceramics from the Late Parthian period, north at the top (after Finkbeiner 1991a: Beilage 32).



-I~ ~ci~~ /2cJ ~2

10A

1OB

11 a

I 1K J 11 b

11c

7

13a

Fig. 6 Survey types 1-14 (after Finkbeiner 199 a: Tafel 167).

LN 9

113

4

"'t t


C. A. PETRIE

5a

15b

24a

I I O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C.

\ .f X 24b

20

Fig. 7 Survey types 15a-24b (after Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafel 168).

114

9



2 26 ~7~~~~ 7

:a

la

29b

30

Fig. 8 Survey types 25a-30 (after Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafel 169).

115

...... II


C. A. PETRIE

31

* yh ^ 33

36b

J^y \ 38

Fig. 9 Survey types 31-40a and V2a-V2b (after Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafeln 170 and 198).

32

34

36a

35

^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I

I

I

4 ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~

40A

V2a

I

- ^

116



^1 2

_ . 4

~~-x7j~~~~

8

Fig. 10 Neo-Babylonian survey types 1-9 (after Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafel 165).

117

A1

3

t ' . l


C. A. PETRIE

' , / 13 J 15

\ 144 16

Fig. 11 Neo-Babylonian survey types 10-16 (after Finkbeiner 1991a: Tafel 166).

118


SELEUCID URUK: AN ANALYSIS ()F CERAMIC DISTRIBUTION

N XVII

\ XVII

Fig. 12 Irigal (after Finkbeiner 1991b: Abb. 3).

119


C. A. PETRIE

Fig. 13 U/V 18, Schicht 3 (after Finkbeiner 1992: Abb. 6).

Fig. 14 Grave types from U/V 18 (after Finkbeiner 1982: Abb. 1). a. b. Infant vessel burial; c. Brick burial; d. Slipper coffin.

Adult tub burial;

120



834

Fig. 15 Biconical flasks from graves in U/V 18 (after Finkbeiner 1992: 559).

121


22 C. A. PETRIE

V ............. I

Fig. 16 Chamber in the east mound (after Lenzen (ed.), 1960: Tafel 44).

1

^ \/ I


SELEUCID URUK: AN ANALYSIS OF CERAMIC DISTRIBUTION 123

Fig. 17 Chamber in the st mound (after Lenzen (ed.), 1959: Tafel 45).

Fig. 17 Chamber in the west mound (after Lenzen (ed.), 1959: Tafel 45).

""a j
