Download Samples completed Samples in process S. Mesopotamia SE Iran

KUNJI CAVE
Susiana Plain
Ram Hormuz Plain
S. Mesopotamia
Kur River Valley
Mamasani
Samples completed
Samples in process
Figure 1. Sources of Ceramic Samples
SE Iran
Figure 2. Surficial geology of Mesopotamia and adjacent highlands (from Haghipour 2009).
Mesopotamia
Warka
Akkad
Open symbols indicate
Open
symbols
indicate
outliers
representing
outliers
representing
probable
non-local samples.
possible non-local samples.
Tell Brak
Susiana
Figure 3. Mesopotamian ceramics including materials from the Warka (green) and Akkad (black) surveys.
Ellipse represents 95% confidence interval for reference group membership.
Solid symbols are group members; open symbols represent outliers that are possibly non-local.
Mesopotamia
Tepe Godin
Tell Brak
Susiana
Figure 4. Separation of reference groups for Mesopotamia, Susiana, Tell Brak, and Tepe Godin on
the first two principle components. Ellipses represent 95% confidence intervals for group
membership. Susiana and Tell Brak clearly separate on subsequent components.
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
Tell Brak
1.000
Tepe Godin
0.800
Mesopotamia
0.600
N. Susiana
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 5. Comparison of ceramics from Mesopotamia with other regions along a mean profile of
27 elements. Mesopotamian ceramics are relatively high in the trace-metals Cr, Mn, and Co.
Mesopotamia
Jebel Aruda
Tepe Godin
Tell Brak
Susiana
Figure 6. Distribution of Jebel Aruda sherds (dark green) relative to reference groups for Mesopotamia,
Susiana, Tell Brak, and Tepe Godin. Note close agreement between Jebel Aruda and Mesopotamia.
Open symbols indicate outliers at Jebel Aruda representing probable non-local samples.
Mesopotamia
Tell Hadidi
Tepe Godin
Tell Brak
Susiana
Figure 7. Sherds from Tell Hadidi Area C relative to reference groups for Mesopotamia, Susiana, Tell Brak,
and Tepe Godin. Area C includes apparent kiln debris dating from ca. 1900-1760 BCE. Note close
agreement with Mesopotamia, suggesting strong similarities between Upper and Lower Euphrates clays.
Mesopotamia
Tell Hadidi
Tepe Godin
Tell Brak
Susiana
Figure 8. Tell Hadidi 4th M. sherds relative to reference groups for Mesopotamia, Susiana,
Tell Brak, and Tepe Godin. Again, note close agreement with Mesopotamia.
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
Tell Hadidi
0.800
Jebel Aruda
Mesopotamia
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 9. Comparison of ceramics from Mesopotamia and sites on the Upper Euphrates along a
mean profile of 27 elements. Only fairly minor differences are apparent in potassium, sodium, and
arsenic content.
Abu Fanduweh
Tepe Sharafabad
Choga Mish
Figure 10. Separation of ceramic sources within the Susiana Plain on a bivariate plot of tantalum
and thorium.
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
Abu Fanduweh
0.800
Tepe Sharafabad
0.600
Choga Mish
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 11. Comparison of ceramics from Susiana sources along a profile of 27 elements.
Mesopotamia
Tepe Godin
Tell Brak
Susiana
Figure 12. Location of ceramic samples from Tell Brak on the first two principle
component axes. The Tell Brak reference group overlaps with Susiana on these axes, but
can be distinguished based on higher rare-earth element content.
Mesopotamia
Tell Brak
Tepe Godin
Black = Local Chalcolithic
material from Tell Brak
Susiana
Figure 12a. Location of ceramic samples from Tell Brak on the first two principle
component axes. The Tell Brak reference group overlaps with Susiana on these axes, but
can be distinguished based on higher rare-earth element content.
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
Local Tell Brak
0.800
Uruk-style Tell Brak
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 12b. Comparison of Uruk-style and local (Chalcolithic) pottery from Tell Brak
across a profile of 27 elements.
Godin-3
Outliers
Godin Main
Godin-2
Figure 13. Identification of preliminary groups at Godin Tepe, based on a bivariate
scatter-plot of scandium and thorium. Open symbols are probable outliers of the
Godin Main group.
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
Tepe Godin
1.000
Godin_2
0.800
Godin_3
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 14. Comparison of ceramic groups from Godin Tepe along a profile of 27 elements.
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
Abu Fanduweh
1.200
Tell Brak
Tepe Godin
1.000
Mesopotamia
N. Susiana
0.800
Godin_2
Godin_3
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca
K
Na Fe Ti
Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th
U
Figure 15. Comparison of ceramic groups from Godin Tepe with other regional reference
groups, along a profile of 27 elements. The main Godin group is distinctly high in Rb, Cs,
and Th relative to other groups.
Mesopotamia
Outliers
Nineveh
Tepe Godin
Tell Brak
Susiana
Figure 16. Distribution of Nineveh sherds relative to reference groups for Mesopotamia, Susiana,
Tell Brak, and Tepe Godin. Outliers are indicated in black; the remaining assemblage has a
composition generally similar to that of Tell Brak.
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
Abu Fanduweh
1.000
Tell Brak
Mesopotamia
0.800
N. Susiana
0.600
Nineveh
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 17. Comparison of ceramics from Nineveh with other regional reference groups,
along a profile of 27 elements. Note the close parallels with Tell Brak, with differences
primarily in Cr content.
Figure 18. Separation of samples from Tal-e
Geser into two composition groups, based
on La:Mn ratios.
Figure 19. Comparison of Tal-e Geser
composition groups with Abu Fanduweh,
N. Susiana, and Mesopotamia.
Yahya Chaff High Ca
Yahya Grit High Co:Fe
Yahya Chaff Low Ca
Yahya Grit Low Co:Fe
Figure 20A. Separation of chaff-tempered
samples from Tepe Yahya into two main
composition groups, based on Ca:Al ratios.
Figure 20B. Separation of grit-tempered samples
from Tepe Yahya into two main composition
groups, based on Co:Fe ratios.
Yahya Grit High Co:Fe
Yahya Grit Low Co:Fe
High Ca
High Ca
Low Ca
Figure 21A. Subdivision of the Yahya Grit High
Co:Fe group, based on Ca:Al ratios. Note that
these groups closely approximate the Ca:Al
subdivisions found in chaff-tempered ceramics
(CI ellipses indicated in black).
Low Ca
Figure 21B. Subdivision of the Yahya Grit Low
Co:Fe group, based on Ca:Al ratios. Note that
these groups are off-set from the Ca:Al
subdivisions found in chaff-tempered ceramics
(black) and High Co:Fe groups (blue).
2.5
2
1.5
Grit High Co:Fe High Ca
Grit High Co:Fe Low Ca
Grit Low Co:Fe High Ca
1
Grit Low Co:Fe Low Ca
0.5
0
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 22. Comparison of ceramic groups from Tepe Yahya along a profile of 27 elements.
Godin Tepe
TG Low Mn,
Low Ca
Tepe Yahya Main
Abu
Fanduweh
Tell Brak
Mesopotamia
N. Susiana
Figure 23. Provenance determination of non-local samples from Mesopotamia, as
illustrated on the first two canonical variates. Five samples (shown in red) are securely
assigned to Abu Fanduweh. One other outlier (URUK_040) shows similarities to Tal-e Geser.
2.000
1.800
1.600
Abu Fanduweh
1.400
Mesopotamia
1.200
URUK_079
1.000
URUK_080
URUK_085
0.800
URUK_087
0.600
URUK_089
0.400
N. Susiana
0.200
0.000
Al Ca
K Na Fe Ti
Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 24. Comparison of Uruk outliers (shown in black) against Mesopotamia and possible
matches along a profile of 27 elements. All have low but significant probabilities of
belonging to Abu Fanduweh, but the match is not convincing. They are, however, clearly
distinct from the average Mesopotamian profile (green).
URUK_079 (BRB)
URUK_085 (BRB)
URUK_080 (BRB)
URUK_087 (BRB)
URUK_089 (BRB)
Fig. 25. Non-local vessels – all bevel-rim bowls – apparently imported from S. Susiana to S. Mesopotamia.
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
Mesopotamia
1.000
TG Low Mn
0.800
Yahya Main
URUK_040
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 26. Comparison of outlier URUK_040 (shown in black) against Mesopotamia and
possible matches along a profile of 27 elements. Relative to other Mesopotamian samples,
URUK_040 is distinctively low in calcium and manganese, but higher in rubidium and
cesium. It is closest in composition to Tal-e Geser (shown in pink) or possibly Tepe Yahya
(shown in brown).
URUK_040
(OI A71346)
Microphotograph of paste
texture on fresh break
Note fine texture and vitrification around
voids, suggesting the inclusion of charcoal.
Figure 27. Jar found in Mesopotamia, possibly imported from Ram Hormuz.
JEB_041
Figure 28. Non-local vessels from Jebel Aruda.
JEB_042
JEB_043
4.500
4.000
3.500
Abu Fanduweh
3.000
Tell Brak
2.500
Jebel Aruda
N. Susiana
2.000
JEB_41
1.500
JEB_42
1.000
JEB_43
0.500
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 29. Comparison of outliers from Jebel Aruda (shown in black) against reference
groups from neighboring regions along a profile of 27 elements. Note that all three
Jebel Aruda cases are extreme outliers on one or more elements.
Mesopotamia
Tell Hadidi
HDD-03 and HDD-024 were
identified as local petrofabric,
but are probable outliers.
Other outliers were identified as
non-local pastes by petrography.
Tell Brak
Tepe Godin
Susiana
Figure 30. Non-local material from Tel Hadidi on the first two principle components.
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
Abu Fanduweh
1.000
Tell Brak
Mesopotamia
0.800
HP_5735
0.600
HP_8360
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca
K
Na Fe
Ti
Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th
U
Figure 31. Comparison of 4th millennium outliers from Tell Hadidi (shown in black) against
neighboring reference groups along a profile of 27 elements.
Sun-dried tile or brick.
Cooking pot.
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
Mesopotamia
1.200
1.000
TBK_048
0.800
TBK_068
0.600
Tell Brak
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 32. Comparison of outliers from Tell Brak (shown in black) against the Mesopotamia
and Tell Brak reference groups along a profile of 27 elements. The higher Cr content of these
outliers links them to Mesopotamia.
TBK_048
TW2-1028:180
Cross-hatch band jar
Microphotographs of paste texture
showing typical Uruk-style grit temper.
TBK_068
TW2-1044:167
Bottle base
Figure 33. Possible Mesopotamian ceramic imports at Tell Brak.
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
Mesopotamia
1.000
NIN_02
0.800
NIN_05
NIN_07
0.600
NIN_19
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc
V
Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 34. Comparison of four samples from Nineveh (shown in black) with significant
probability of membership in the Mesopotamia reference group, as calculated along a
profile of 27 elements. Other than arsenic, the samples show an acceptable match.
NIN_002 (1932-12-12-1371G)
NIN_005 (1932-12-12-384)
NIN_007 (1932-12-12-402)
NIN_019 (1932-12-12-382)
Figure 35. Four samples from Nineveh with significant probability of membership in the
Mesopotamia reference group, as calculated along a profile of 27 elements.
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
Tell Brak
NIN_13
0.800
NIN_15
0.600
NIN_16
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 36. Comparison of three samples from Nineveh (shown in black) with significant
probability of membership in the Tell Brak reference group, as calculated along a profile
of 27 elements. NIN_013 and NIN_015 show a strong match with Tell Brak, while the
similarity for NIN_016 is less striking.
NIN_013 (1932-12-12-1371A)
NIN_015 (1932-12-12-1404)
Figure 37. Three vessels from
Nineveh that appear to match the
chemical signature of Tell Brak.
NIN_016 (1932-12-12-1406)
1.600
Abu Fanduweh
1.400
GOT_77
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
1.600
Tell Brak
1.400
GOT_06
1.200
1.000
0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 38. Possible matches for outliers found at Godin Tepe,
based on multivariate probabilities of group membership as
calculated across 27 elements.
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
Mesopotamia
1.000
TG-13
0.800
TG-27
0.600
TG-73
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 39A. Comparison of three samples from Tal-e Geser with significant probability of
membership in the Mesopotamian reference group, as calculated along a profile of 27 elements.
2.500
2.000
N. Susiana
1.500
TG-30
1.000
TG-39
TG-48
0.500
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 39B. Comparison of three samples from Tal-e Geser associated with the Susiana
reference group, along a profile of 27 elements.
Imports from Mesopotamia
TG_013
TG_027
Import from N Susiana
(Lath-like inclusions are mineral)
TG_030
Figure 40. Pastes of non-local sherds
from Tal-e Geser.
TG_073
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
Tepe Godin
0.800
YAH-111
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
Al Ca K Na Fe Ti Sc V Cr Mn Co Zn Rb Cs Ba As La Ce Sm Eu Tb Yb Lu Hf Ta Th U
Figure 41. Comparison of outlier from Tepe Yahya with the Godin Tepe reference group,
along a profile of 27 elements. Note the characteristic high Rb and Cs values, which are
unusual within the region.