Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:38:24.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cemetery a at Kish: Grave Groups and Chronology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

P. R. S. Moorey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ernest Mackay's excavations on behalf of the Oxford(Weld)-Field Museum Expedition to Mesopotamia on mound A at Kish (1923–25) were published with exemplary speed and in considerable detail, though the author made clear in his account the very real difficulties involved in establishing the integrity of the grave-groups he was reporting. Unfortunately the publication of the cemetery, in two successive parts, is not consistent. Mackay chose to assemble his finds, both pottery and minor objects, on plates in a typological series; but even these are selective not comprehensive. In the case of graves 1–38, which appeared in the first half of the cemetery report, he included a chart from which it is possible, using it in conjunction with the plates on which the location of each object is marked, to reconstruct the grave-groups, though without the field numbers which were never published. In the second half of the cemetery report, which covered graves 39–154, Mackay adopted a system of illustration on plates similar to that used in the first report but with the addition of field numbers for each object. But this time he did not include a chart tabulating the grave-groups. Once again it is possible to reconstruct certain grave-groups from the plates, with assiduous attention to the detailed notes on various types of object given in the main text, though rarely with complete accuracy as by far the greater number of grave-groups were incompletely illustrated. As Mackay's carefully annotated field-cards have survived it is possible to reconstruct all the recorded grave-groups in full, though descriptions of individual objects are at times very cryptic. Even a cursory glance through the catalogue of graves reveals the disturbed condition of a great many of them. As the report intimates, and the field-cards confirm, there were many more graves whose contents had been scattered by human or natural activity. A great many objects, exactly comparable to those reported from grave-groups, were recorded without context from the upper levels of mound A.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1970 , pp. 86 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I have used throughout the field catalogue held by the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. For the years 1923–1925 there is a complete set of object cards, but the grave records and plans have not been traced either in Baghdad, Oxford or Chicago, though there is definite evidence that such existed when Mackay presented his reports for publication.

2 Delougaz, 144.

3 Most recently see Porada, E. in Ehrich, R. W., Comparative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 1965, 163.Google Scholar

4 ZA 24 (1966), 256 ff.Google Scholar

5 Nissen; Delougaz, P., Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region, Chicago, 1967.Google Scholar

6 Le Temple d'Ishtar, Paris, 1956 Google Scholar; Les Temples d'Ishtarat et de Ninni-zaza, 1967.Google Scholar

7 In Ehrich, R. W., Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 1965, 201 ff.Google Scholar

8 Of 154 graves 4 belonged to the first millennium B.C.; 70 were disturbed and 80 were said to be intact.

9 The caption to AM I, pl. XXII: ‘Skeleton plan of palace showing later buildings and positions of graves’ indicates that such a plan originally existed, as one would expect from Mackay's method of work, but all that appears on this plate is the eastern end of palace A. In a letter to Langdon dated 15 February 1930 Mackay listed all the editorial errors in this volume and suggested placing the missing plan, with grave levels, in AM 1(3); but it never appeared there.

10 ZA 24 (1966), 262.Google Scholar

11 Although the authors use the American (Frankfort) system of terminology they try to relate it to the German system (Moortgat). The attempt is complicated by a growing variety in the terminology, all initially based on stylistic analysis, current in German archaeological literature for this period: see for example Strommenger, E., Bagh. Mitt. 1 (1960), 16 ff., Table 2–3Google Scholar; Nagel, W., Moortgat Festschrift, 1964, Chart IIIGoogle Scholar; Boehmer, R., ZA 27 (1969), 261 ff.Google Scholar The confusion is particularly acute in Strommenger's attempt to subdivide Early Dynastic II retaining the epithet Mesilim Zeit, and inevitably many of the intimately associated stylistic arguments, for the earlier phase, when there is accumulating evidence that this ruler, and the style of the decorated macehead inscribed for him, may, independently, be attributed to Early Dynastic IIIA: Rowton, M. B., Chronology, (CAH) 1962, 54 Google Scholar; Mallowan, M. E. L., The Early Dynastic Period in Mesopotamia (CAH) 1968, 30, nn. 4 and 32Google Scholar; Amiet, 57. Her later phase: Fara Zeit overlaps with ED IIIA.

12 ZA 24 (1966), 262 ff.Google Scholar

13 Nissen, 61; Parrot, A., Le Temple d'Ishtar, 197, pl. LXVII, 251, 586.Google Scholar

14 AM I, 138.Google Scholar

15 XK IV, 49 Google Scholar ff.

16 AM I, 113 Google Scholar ff.; AM I, 10, 75–6, 101, 108.Google Scholar

17 AM I, 194, pl. XLI, 8Google Scholar; Amiet, no. 947.

18 AM I, 149, pl. LI, 20.2869Google Scholar; cf. Delougaz, pl. 78— C.515.362.

19 AM I, pl. LI, 23–27.2895 A–D.

20 Delougaz, 53, 81, 91; AMI, pl. XIV, pl. LI: Type ‘D’; Iraq 28 (1966), pl. VII, IX.Google Scholar

21 Delougaz, pl. 67d, e.

22 Delougaz, pl. 72i j—B.526.270; B.545.240a, p. 82; E. Heinrich, Fara, fig. 35 F.134.

23 AM I, pl. LI: Type ‘C’. Other objects from low levels at the N.W. corner of the palace were either not kept (2870–71, 2876—pottery) or are not suitable for close dating: stone bowls 2872, 2917. It now seems that Langdon's reference to a deep sounding at the palace in the 1928–9 season is a misunderstanding of Watelin's reports on his work on Ingharra, —JRAS (1930), 630.Google Scholar There is no evidence for such work elsewhere in the records and no trace on the actual site of palace A of a deep sounding.

24 AM I, pl. XXXVII, 4–6 Google Scholar; cf. Delougaz, 99–100.

25 AM I, 11, 91, pl. XXXVI, 10, 12Google Scholar; this dating has been suggested to Gibson by Biggs, see Gibson, 160, n.1.

26 AM I, 90, pl. XXXI, 2.Google Scholar

27 Moorey, P. R. S., Iraq 28 (1966), 44 Google Scholar; Lloyd, S., Iraq 31 (1969), Plate VII.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 For example Y.459–464, 485; mainly in Baghdad: 1M 5661, 5789–90, 5846.

29 AM I, 106 Google Scholar: ‘at least five hundred years’.

30 Amiran, D. H. K., JEJ 3 (1953), 208–9Google Scholar; see also Woolley's comments on erosion in UE IV, 30, n.1.Google Scholar

31 AM I, 76, 113 ff.Google Scholar

32 AM I, 131, 139–150 Google Scholar; grave II—AM 1, pl. XV, 1.

33 Delougaz: Types C.201.200, 203, 205; 201.201a, b; 211.200; C.011.201a, b; Parrot, A., Le Temple d'Ishtar, 212–3.Google Scholar

34 AM I, 114, pl. XLV, 5Google Scholar; LII.9 (2131).

35 AM I, 149.Google Scholar

36 Delougaz, 106, pl. 185—C.587.682.

37 AM I, 114, pl. XXXI, 2.Google Scholar

38 Delougaz, pl. 196—D.654-310, pl. 197—E.223.000; pl. 198—E.313.010.

39 AM I, 114, pl. LIX, 28B.Google Scholar

40 AM I, pl. XLVI.

41 For a convenient assembly ol illustrations see Salonen, A., Die Landfahrzeuge des alten Mesopotamien, 1951, pl. IV, X, XV, XVII–XVIIIGoogle Scholar; McCown, D. E., Nippur, I, pl. 149.Google Scholar

42 AM I, 116, pl. XXXI, 1.Google Scholar

43 AM 1, 76–7, 118, 138.Google Scholar

44 Taken from about Gilgamesh of Uruk to Sargon's accession— Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian King List, 1939, Table IIGoogle Scholar; Delougaz, P., Pre-Sargonid Temples of the Diyala Region, 125 ff.Google Scholar; Rowton, M. B., Chronology, (CAH), 50 ff.Google Scholar; Nagel, W., Moortgat Festschrift, 214, Table II.Google Scholar

45 Delougaz, P., Private Houses and Graves of the Diyala Region, 129 ff.Google Scholar; 159–168, esp. 162.

46 AM I, pl. LI, 13 Google Scholar; cf. McCown, , Nippur, I, pl. 82, 1.Google Scholar

47 Nissen, pl. 8: Type 158; UE II, pl. 261.158.

48 AM I, pl. XXXIX, 2448, 2430 not 2730.

49 Nissen, pl. 16—metallgeräte 2, Nadel IC—d.

50 AM I, pl. XLVIII, 24; XLIX, 18.

51 ZA 24 (1966), 262 ff.Google Scholar

52 Boehmer, R., ZA 27 (1969), 261 ff.Google Scholar

53 Boehmer, R., Die Entwicklung der Glyptik uährend der Akkad-Zeit, Berlin, 1965, no. 860, fig. 318: ‘Akkadisch Ib, c’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 XK IV, pl. XXXIV, 50.

55 AM I, pl. VI, 19—grave 12; but see also from mound A the fine seals—AM I, pl. XLI, 7, 8, 17—which may be from scattered graves.

56 I have argued in Iraq 28 (1966), 28ff.Google Scholar that these are earlier than palace A. For sealings see XK IV, pl. XXVI, XXXVIII–XL; Buchanan, nos. 149–151, 156.

57 Amiet, 58.

58 Amiet, 177 ff.; pl. 106 ff.

59 AM I, pl. VI, 17.

60 AM pl. XLI, 10–12 (2408, 2249, 2850B).

61 The pottery was fully discussed by Mackay in AM I and Delougaz, passim, assembles much of the comparanda on the basis of the Diyala excavations.

62 Delougaz, 87 ff.

63 Delougaz, P., Private Houses and Graves of the Diyala Region, 129 ff.Google Scholar

64 Delougaz, 89–90.

65 Parrot, A., Le Temple d'Ishtar, pl. LXX, 702 Google Scholar; Madhlum, T. A., Sumer 16 (1960), pl. 9, 10–11 (Arabic text)Google Scholar, see also Rashid, S. A., Sumer 19 (1963), 82 ff.Google Scholar; E. Heinrich, Fara, pl. 18K; cf. Barrelet, M. Th., l'igurines et reliefs en terre cuite, 1, 1968, no. 92 (Tello)Google Scholar; L. Legrain, Terracottas from Nippur, no. 379 (? upside down).

66 Le Breton, L., Iraq 19 (1957), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 Nissen, 175— ‘Ur I—Lu’.

68 Nissen, 177; Barrelet, M. Th., Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite, I, 1968, 66.Google Scholar

69 Delougaz, P., Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region, 87, fig. 57—ED I.Google Scholar

70 Delougaz, 90.

71 Woolley, C. L., UE II, pl. 180, 266: Type 243Google Scholar; Parrot, A., Le Temple d'Ishtar, 213 ff., fig. 105.Google Scholar E. Heinrich, Fara, pl. 20a; Breton, L. Le, Iraq 19 (1957), fig. 36.16, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Moorey, P. R. S., Iraq 29 (1967), 109–110 with discussion of the decoration.Google Scholar

73 Woolley, C. L., UE II, pl. 218 (U.13709), 388.Google Scholar

74 Y.77—Baghdad Museum; this is the ‘foot of an altar table’ XK IV, 51.

75 Amiet, nos. 1284, 1287–1290.

76 Parrot, A., Le Temple d'Ishtar, 213 ff.Google Scholar

77 Delougaz, 106: C.556.322; cf. AM pl. LI, 18 (1872B).

78 Delougaz, 101–2, 105.

79 K. 550 (IM 18700); cf. Delougaz, pl. 188: C.665.543C for the form.

80 AMI, pl. XLV.4 (1831; 2543; 2625).

81 Delougaz, 102.

82 Parrot, A., Le Temples d'Ishtarat el de Ninni-zaza, 293 ff., pl. LXXX ff.Google Scholar; fig. 314. For Kish parallels: Mari 3201, 3209, 3223 (Upper) = Type O; Mari 3207–8, 3212, 3222, 3223–4 = Type L; 3229 = Type Q; Mari 3218, 3226 = Type RA; 3216, 3220 = Type C; 3219 = Type P; 3205 = Type S (pl. IV, 41).

83 AM I, pl. XXXIX, 7 (2034, 2448); cf. UE II, pl. 223: Type A. 1.a. and A.1.b; for dating see Nissen, pl. 15.

84 AM I, pl. XVII, 1, 4; pl. LXII, 2, 3; cf. UE II, pl. 225: Types S.1–10; for dating see Nissen, pl. 19.

85 See map on frontispiece of AM I(2) for mound ‘E’.

86 AM I, 140.Google Scholar

87 XK IV, 49 ff.Google Scholar; these grave-groups are listed in Appendix II.

88 Moorey, P. R. S., Iraq 28 (1966), 29–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see Lloyd, S., Iraq 31 (1969), 44 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89 XK IV, pl. XXXIV, 3.Google Scholar

90 XK IV, 50.Google Scholar

91 Woolley, C. L., UE II, pl. 100: U.10917A; pl. 104: U.10412; 12353.Google Scholar

92 Amiet, 138.

93 Leemans, W. F., Foreign Trade of the Old Babylonian Period, 1960, 125.Google Scholar

94 Parrot, A., Le ‘Tresor’ d'Ur, 1968, 18 ff.Google Scholar; pl. VII-VIII; Madhlum, T. A., Sumer, 16 (1960), pl. 7 (Arabic text)Google Scholar; Andrae, W., Die archaisch– Ischtar-Tempel in Assur, 56 ff., pl. 29.Google Scholar

95 Since my paper in Iraq 28 (1966), 18 ff.Google Scholar, McGuire Gibson, on the basis of records in Chicago then unavailable to me, has done much to extend and where necessary correct my arguments, Gibson, 174 ff. He agrees with the main chronological conclusions.

96 There seems little doubt of this now; both Gibson and Lloyd, , Iraq 31 (1969), pl. VII endorse my earlier suggestion.Google Scholar Gibson's work has shown that the published numbering of the chariot graves is confused. They were Y.357, Y.363 (not 237) and Y. 5 29; there is also evidence for more than three.

97 ProfessorGelb, I. J. is preparing a publication of the textual material: MAD 5 (Chicago, 1970).Google Scholar