Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-jcwnq Total loading time: 0.168 Render date: 2021-10-18T23:16:07.570Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Defining the style of the period: Jemdet Nasr 1926–28

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Extract

The mounds of Jemdet Nasr, 100 km south of Baghdad, were subjected to two seasons of excavations in 1926–28. These campaigns yielded a tremendous assemblage of artefacts which have never received the full publication to which they are undoubtedly entitled. In order to rectify this shortcoming a programme of publishing all known items from the 1920s seasons is now well underway, with museum work completed on the Jemdet Nasr collections in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and the Field Museum, Chicago. It is intended to publish the 1920s material as Volume 1 of the series Jemdet Nasr Excavations, which will continue with volumes concerning our own recent work at the site. Pending completion of study of Jemdet Nasr items in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, it has been decided to present this preliminary survey as an indication of the wealth of material retrieved during those two seasons in 1926 and 1928, and in order to address questions that have arisen in the subsequent decades. The main issues of debate have been whether or not it is justifiable to speak of a Jemdet Nasr period, distinct from the Late Uruk and Early Dynastic periods, and a concern to specify items of material culture, particularly pottery, which may assist in the identification of such a period in both temporal and geographical terms. Recent and future excavations at the site, and elsewhere, are likely to provide some of the pointers, but it is perhaps too often the case that excavations of the early part of this century are dismissed as below modern standards and therefore not worthy of detailed study. It is hoped that this article can show the value of re-analysing old excavations from a contemporary viewpoint, particularly by drawing upon comparative material from a range of other excavated sites in order to place the Jemdet Nasr assemblage within a wider Mesopotamian context.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1992

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

Al-Soof, B. A., 1985. Uruk pottery. Origin and distribution. Baghdad, Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Culture and Information.Google Scholar
Banks, E. J., 19051906. Terra-cotta vases from Bismya. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 22, 139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, B., 1966. Catalogue of ancient Near Eastern seals in the Ashmolean Museum. Volume 1. Cylinder seals. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Delougaz, P., 1952. Pottery from the Diyala region. (The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications 63). Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Englund, R. K. and Grégoire, J.-P., 1991. The proto-cuneiform texts from Jemdet Nasr. 1: copies, transliterations and glossary. (Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 1). Berlin, Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Fales, F. M., Tusa, S., Wilhelm, G. and Zaccagnini, C., 1987. German-Italian expedition to Iraq. Preliminary report on the first campaign of excavations within the Saddam Dam reservoir archaeological rescue project (1984). In Researches on the antiquities of Saddam Dam salvage and other researches. Baghdad. Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Culture and Information, 99128.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, A., 1936. Archaische Texte aus Uruk. (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 2). Berlin, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.Google Scholar
Field, H., 1926. New discoveries at Kish. The Illustrated London News 169: 4559, 395.Google Scholar
Field, H., 1929. The Field Museum—Oxford University Expedition to Kish, Mesopotamia 1923–1929. (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Anthropology Leaflet 28). Chicago, Field Museum.Google Scholar
Field, H., 1932a. Ancient wheat and barley from Kish, Mesopotamia. American Anthropologist 34, 303–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H., 1932b. Human remains from Jemdet Nasr, Mesopotamia. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1932, 967–70.Google Scholar
Field, H., 1953. The track of man. New York, Doubleday.Google Scholar
Field, H. and Martin, R. A., 1935. Painted pottery from Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. American Journal of Archaeology 39, 310–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frangipane, M. and Palmieri, A., 1983. A protourban centre of the Late Uruk period. In Frangipane, M. and Palmieri, A., (eds.) Perspectives on protourbanization in eastern Anatolia: Arslaniepe (Malatya). An interim report on 1975–83 campaigns. Origini 12, 287668.Google Scholar
Fujii, H., (ed.) 1981. Preliminary report on excavations at Gubba and Songor. Hamrin report 6. al-Rafidan 2, 1242.Google Scholar
Genouillac, H. de, 1934. Fouilles de Telloh I. Époquesprésargoniques. Paris, Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Ghirshman, R., 1938. Fouilles de Sialk I. (Musée du Louvre Série Archéologique 4). Paris, Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Green, M. W., 1986. Urum and Uqair. Acta Sumerologica 8, 7783.Google Scholar
Haller, A. v., 1932. Die Keramik der archaischen Schichten von Uruk. In Nöldeke, A., Heinrich, E., Lenzen, H. and Haller, A. v., Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft in Uruk unternommenen Ausgrabungen. (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Jahrgang 1932, 6). Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften, 3147.Google Scholar
Hansen, D. P., 1965. The relative chronology of Mesopotamia. Part II. The pottery sequence at Nippur from the Middle Uruk to the end of the Old Babylonian period (3400–1600 B.C.). In Ehrich, R. W., (ed.) Chronologies in Old World archaeology. Chicago, University Press, 201–13.Google Scholar
Ii, H., 1988. Seals and seal impressions from Tell Gubba. al-Rafidan 9, 97134.Google Scholar
Jordan, J., 1931. Zweiter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft in Uruk unternommenen Ausgrabungen. (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Jahrgang 1930, 4). Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Langdon, S., 1927. Ausgrabungen in Babylonien seit 1918. Der Alte Orient 26, 375.Google Scholar
Langdon, S., 1928. The Herbert Weld collection in the Ashmolean Museum. Pictographic inscriptions from Jemdet Nasr. (Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 7). Oxford, University Press.Google Scholar
Langdon, S., 1931. New texts from Jemdet Nasr. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1931, 837–44.Google Scholar
Le Brun, A., 1971. Recherches stratigraphiques à l'Acropole de Suse (1969–1971). Cahiers de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 1, 163216.Google Scholar
Lenzen, H., 1963. XIX. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 8). Berlin, Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S. and Safar, F., 1943. Tell Uqair: excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate of Antiquities in 1940 and 1941. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2, 131–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacAdam, E. and Mynors, H. S., 1988. Tell Rubeidheh: pottery from the Uruk Mound. In Killick, R. G., (ed.) Tell Rubeidheh. An Uruk village in the Jebel Hamrin. (Iraq Archaeological Reports 2). Warminster, Aris and Phillips, 3976.Google Scholar
Mackay, D., 1927. Painted potsherds. The English Review 45, 81–9.Google Scholar
Mackay, E., 1925. Report on the excavation of the “A” cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Part I. (Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Memoirs I, 1). Chicago, Field Museum.Google Scholar
Mackay, E., 1929. A Sumerian palace and the “A” cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Part II. (Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Memoirs I, 2). Chicago, Field Museum.Google Scholar
Mackay, E., 1931. Report on excavations at Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. (Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Memoirs I, 3). Chicago, Field Museum.Google Scholar
Mallowan, M. E. L., 1947. Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar. Iraq 9, 1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margueron, J., 1982. Recherches sur les palais mésopotamiens de l'age du bronze. Paris, Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Martin, H. P., 1988. Fara: a reconstruction of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Shuruppak. Birmingham, Chris Martin and Associates.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. J., 1989. Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1988. Iraq 51, 225–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. J., 1990. Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1989. Iraq 52, 2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. J., 1992. Cities, seals and writing: archaic seal impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur. (Materialien zu den frühen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 2). Berlin, Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Moon, J., 1987. Catalogue of Early Dynastie pottery. (Abu Salabikh Excavations 3). London, British School of Archaeology in Iraq.Google Scholar
Moorey, P. R. S., 1976. The late prehistoric administrative building at Jamdat Nasr. Iraq 38, 95106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moorey, P. R. S., 1978. Kish excavations 1923–1933. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moorey, P. R. S. and Schweizer, F., 1972. Copper and copper alloys in ancient Iraq, Syria and Palestine: some new analyses. Archaeometry 14, 177–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissen, H. J., 1986. The development of writing and of glyptic art. In Finkbeiner, U. and Röllig., W., (eds.) Gamdat Naṣr: period or regional style? (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B 62). Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert, 316–31.Google Scholar
Pollock, S., 1987. Abu Salabikh, the Uruk Mound 1985–86. Iraq 49, 121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, S., 1990. Political economy as viewed from the garbage dump: Jemdet Nasr occupation at the Uruk Mound, Abu Salabikh. Paléorient 16, 5775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pongratz-Leisten, B., 1988. Keramik der frühdynastischen Zeit aus den Grabungen in Uruk-Warka. Baghdader Mitteilungen 19, 177319.Google Scholar
Postgate, J. N., 1983. The West Mound surface clearance. (Abu Salabikh Excavations 1). London, British School of Archaeology in Iraq.Google Scholar
Postgate, J. N. and Moon, J., 1982. Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1981. Iraq 44, 103–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, D. T., 1986. Eastern Arabia and the Oman peninsula during the late fourth and early third millennium B.C. In Finkbeiner, U. and Rölling, W., (eds.) Ǧamdat Naṣr: period or regional style? (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B 62). Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert, 121–71.Google Scholar
Scheil, V., 1929. Documents et arguments. Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale 26, 119.Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1986. Tokens at Susa. Oriens Antiquus 25, 93125.Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1988. Tokens at Uruk. Baghdader Mitteilungen 19, 1175.Google Scholar
Steve, M.-J. and Gasche, H., 1971. L'Acropole de Suse. (Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran 46). Leiden, E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Strommenger, E., 1980. Habuba Kabira eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren. Mainz am Rhein, Phillip von Zabern.Google Scholar
Sumner, W., 1976. Excavations at Tall-i Malyan (Anshan). Iran 14, 103–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sürenhagen, D., 1978. Keramikproduktion in Habuba Kabira Süd. (Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 5/6, 1974/5). Berlin, Bruno Hessling.Google Scholar
Sürenhagen, D., 1979. Aḫmad al Ḥattu 1978. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 111, 3550.Google Scholar
Sürenhagen, D., 1987. Archaische Keramik aus Uruk-Warka. Zweiter Teil: Keramik der Schicht V aus dem “Sägegraben”; “Keramik der Schichten VII bis II” in Eanna; die registrierte Keramik aus den Sondagen O XI–XII und K-L XII–XIII; Keramik von der Anu-Zikkurrat in K XVII. Baghdader Mitteilungen 18, 192.Google Scholar
Theusen, I., 1981. Early Dynastie pottery from Tell Razuk. In Gibson, McG., (ed.) Uch Tepe I. Teil Razuk, Teil Ahmed al-Mughir, Teil Ajamat. (Hamrin Report 10). Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag, 99143.Google Scholar
Thureau-Dangin, F., 1927. Tablettes à signes picturaux. Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale 24, 23–9.Google Scholar
Van Ess, M., 1988. Keramik von der Akkad- bis zum Ende der altbabylonischen Zeit aus den Planquadraten N XV und XVI und aus dem Sinkāšid-Palast in Uruk-Warka. Baghdader Mitteilungen 19, 321442.Google Scholar
Watelin, L. Ch., 1934. Excavations at Kish IV 1925–1930. Paris, Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. L., 1986. Nippur: the definition of a Mesopotamian Ǧamdat Naṣr assemblage. In Finkbeiner, U. and Rölling, W., (eds.) Ǧamdat Naṣr: period or regional style? (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B 62). Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert, 5789.Google Scholar
Woolley, C. L., 1955. The early periods. (Ur Excavations 4). London, British Museum.Google Scholar
Wright, H. T., (ed.) 1981. An early town on the Deh Luran plain. Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad. (University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs 13). Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Young, T. C., 1986. Godin Tepe period VI/V and central western Iran at the end of the fourth millennium. In Finkbeiner, U. and Röllig, W., (eds.) Ǧamdat Naṣr: period or regional style? (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B 62). Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert, 212–28.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Defining the style of the period: Jemdet Nasr 1926–28
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Defining the style of the period: Jemdet Nasr 1926–28
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Defining the style of the period: Jemdet Nasr 1926–28
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *