Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
Work on my publication of the University of Pennsylvania's 1931 soundings at Fara prompted me to look again at the material from the Early Dynastic cemetery at al-‘Ubaid. This study resulted. It attempts to re-define the relative dates of the graves within the al-‘Ubaid cemetery. It also reviews the evidence for the dating of the cemetery as a whole in an effort to establish its position within the Early Dynastic period.
There is an extended discussion of the pottery types found in Sumer in ED II and IIIa. The neglect of this material has recently been highlighted by Professor Adams' survey of the Sumerian “heartland”. One of the most striking problems to emerge from his study is the difficulty of identifying pottery and sites of this period.
1 Erich Schmidt excavated at Fara for three months in 1931 for the University of Pennsylvania. (Schmidt, E., “Excavations at Fara, 1931”, University of Pennsylvania Museum Journal 22 (1931), 193—217.Google Scholar) My Ph.D. thesis for the University of Chicago (Fara, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1972Google Scholar) was partially based on this material kindly made available to me by the University of Pennsylvania's University Museum. I owe much to the help of Professor R. Dyson of the University Museum and Professor M. van Loon, now of the University of Amsterdam. I am currently preparing the Fara material for final publication. One ED I seal impression from these excavations is published in Martin, H., “The Tablets of Shuruppak”, Le Temple et le Culte (Leiden, 1975), Pl. XXXVIII, Fig. 3Google Scholar. The find number there is given as “FS 264” (= “Fara Schmidt”); I have since decided it is clearer to refer to these finds as “FP” (Fara Philadelphia) to distinguish them from the finds of the D.O.G. excavations which are published with a preceding “F”. I am indebted to Mr. J. N. Postgate for his helpful comments on this article.
2 Adams, Robert McC., Heartland of Cities (Chicago, 1981), 170, cf. 132, 138–9Google Scholar. Wright's criteria for distinguishing ED III from ED I (“low frequencies of ledge-rim jars, … high frequencies of simple flared-rim jars, a scarcity of decorated sherds except for hatched strip”) is reasonable, but as he notes, means that ED (II–) III is difficult to spot if ED I is present on the same site. Indeed, Wright considered that the entire al-‘Ubaid cemetery was ED I (ibid., 306, 327). Cf. footnote 25.
3 Hall, H. R. and Woolley, C. L., Al-‘Ubaid. Ur Excavation Reports I (London and Philadelphia, 1927) (henceforth UE I), 60Google Scholar.
4 Ibid., 154–5, 172, 173, 176–7, 213.
5 Wright, Henry T., The Administration of Rural Production in an Early Mesopotamian Town. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 38 (Ann Arbor, 1969), 81–3Google Scholar.
6 Khafaje: Delougaz, P., Hill, H. D. and Lloyd, S., Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region. Oriental Institute Publications 88 (Chicago, 1967), 2, Pls. 2–13Google Scholar; Frankfort, H., O.I.C. 20 (1936), 17Google Scholar. Abu Salabikh: Postgate, J. N., “Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1975”, Iraq 38 (1976), Fig. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1978–9”, Iraq 42 (1980), Fig. 1Google Scholar. Fara: Schmidt, E., MJ 22 (1931), 207Google Scholar. Schmidt's belief that many of the burials were dug in areas where houses were not currently inhabited is hard to substantiate. Only in one of his four excavation areas did he penetrate much below 2 m, which explains why the greater part of his thirty-seven graves were above this level. In DE 38/39, the deep sounding reaching Jemdet Nasr levels, there were eleven graves between the surface and 2 m depth, three graves between 4–4·50 m and two graves at 6·10–6·75 m. The full 10 × 20 m area was only excavated to a depth of about I m, however, and there were repeated contractions of the area excavated before virgin soil was reached at 6·75 m. (See Schmidt, , MJ 22 (1931), 201.Google Scholar) Kish: Moorey, P. R. S., “A Reconsideration of the Excavations on Tell Ingharra (East Kish), 1923–33”, Iraq 28 (1966), 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 No pottery: 11, 19, 25, 26, 31–4, 43, 73; Ubaid Period: 8, 9, 64; Jemdet Nasr Period: 45, 90. ED I: 1, 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 15b, 16, 49, 55, 58, 74, 77, 82 (cf. Appendix 1, fn. 92), 88; ED IIIb–Akkadian: 2, 50; Akkadian/Ur III: 38; graves 18, 19, 31–4 and 72 also appear late but there is too little evidence for exact dating.
8 Hall, and Woolley, , UE I, 189–203Google Scholar.
9 Perkins, A.. The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 25 (Chicago, 1949), 76, fn. 228Google Scholar.
10 Hall, and Woolley, , UE I, 154–5Google Scholar; on page 155 it is clear that Woolley is uncertain which pots belonged to grave 64 and which were in the fill.
11 Ibid., 203.
12 Grave 38 contained two bowls of an Akkadian/Ur III type (type XVII). Grave 2 contained three examples of type XCVII, a footed jar somewhat similar to ED IIIb types at Abu Salabikh. Postgate, J. N., “Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1976”, Iraq 39 (1977), 293CrossRefGoogle Scholar. At Ur this Ubaid cemetery variety is found in Akkadian graves. Grave 50 contained one example of type XCV, a footed jar similar in type to that in Grave 2. Graves 18 and 19 held no pottery but were built using square bricks which Woolley believed postdated the bulk of the cemetery. It also seems likely that round coffins (graves 31–4, 72) are late.
13 See fn. 1 for Schmidt's preliminary publication.
14 Wright, Administration, Fig. 17 c.
15 Moon, J., “Some New Early Dynastic Pottery from Abu Salabikh”, Iraq 43 (1981), 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delougaz, P., Pottery from the Diyala Region, Oriental Institute Publication 63 (Chicago, 1952), Pl. 192 D.515.362, Pl. 193 D.525.362Google Scholar. (Delougaz, Henceforth, OIP 63.Google Scholar)
16 Kühne, Hartmut, Die Keramik vom Tell Chuera (Berlin, 1976), 67–70Google Scholar, and Postgate, , Iraq 39, 295 and Pl. XXXIIIbGoogle Scholar.
17 Schmidt, , MJ 22 (1931), 202–6Google Scholar. The pit or silo reported here was Pit I. Schmidt's Pit II is not mentioned in the preliminary report.
18 Ibid., 207 and Pl. X 1.
19 Woolley, C. L., The Royal Cemetery, Ur Excavations II (London and Philadelphia 1934), 388 and Pl. 187 for upright-handlesGoogle Scholar; 517 and Pl. 266 Types 240 and 241 fot footed jars. For the bowl with the pinched rim in the Diyala see examples on Delougaz, , OIP 63, Pls. 150–1Google Scholar. For the bowl with interior ledge rim see examples on ibid., Pls. 146, 148, 149. Cf. Appendix 1, fn. 96.
20 Woolley, , UE II, 512–17Google Scholar. Where Woolley decided the pot types from Ur and Ubaid were the same, he used the same drawings to illustrate the types.
21 Woolley, , UE II, 390Google Scholar; Delougaz, , OIP 63, 58Google Scholar; Postgate, , Iraq 39 (1977), 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Hall, and Woolley, , UE I, Pl. LVGoogle Scholar.
23 For the purpose of relative dating it seems most helpful to have bowls from several contemporary deposits. Stacks of bowls within one grave are often virtually identical in size. In these cases there is a possibility that the bowls were made in one run by one potter. Therefore they may not reflect the full range of conical bowl sizes in their period. Distinctions between the ED II and IIIa material are especially difficult. Table 2a combines bowls from two ED II loci and two ED IIIa loci at Fara. One ED II locus has almost 40% large bowls, but the other has only 20%. One ED IIIa locus (HI 47/48/58) has 27% large bowls although it also has one bowl under 6 cm high; the other (D.P. 7 and 8 in DE 38/39) has twelve bowls ranging from 4·8 to 6·6 cm with nothing larger at all. Both ED IIIa loci are dated by the presence of apparently contemporary ED IIIa tablets. The difference in the bowls makes it seem likely that D.P. 7 and 8 were somewhat later than HI 47/48/58, however.
24 Woolley, , UE II, 513Google Scholar; Nissen, H. J., Zur Datierung des Königsfriedhofes von Ur, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Stratigraphie der Privatgräber, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 3 (Bonn, 1966), Tf.5Google Scholar.
25 Adams, R. McC. and Nissen, H. J., The Uruk Countryside (Chicago, 1971), 103Google Scholar, names a tall cylindrical beaker as typical of ED II–III. In the typology of al-‘Ubaid and Ur this form does not appear as distinct from the beaker-like conical bowls. Possibly the al-‘Ubaid types V and VI include some of these beakers and are a later type distinct from the very large and steep sided ED I conical bowls. If so, the distinction has been lost in the classification of the pottery. It must also be noted that the cup with an interior ledge rim which is also noted as typical of ED II–III on the same page is not found to my knowledge at Fara, al-‘Ubaid or Ur and appears to be a northern form (cf. fn. 19). The same dating criteria were used by Adams in his more recent survey (Adams, , Heartland, 170Google Scholar). In this study Adams concludes that the third of his ED II–III indicators, the “fruit stand”, may have originated in ED I or even the Jemdat Nasr period (ibid., 127). (It should be noted that there is no sign of fruit stands in these levels at Fara or in graves of this period at al-‘Ubaid.) In short, one of the three type fossils used to spot ED II/III sites on the Uruk and central Sumer surveys is difficult to separate from ED I forms; another is a northern type rarely if ever found in the south. The third on its own was not considered proof of ED II–III habitation. See also fn. 2.
26 Postgate, , Iraq 38 (1976), 168 and Fig. 8 no. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar (from grave 1) compared to Postgate, , Iraq 39 (1977), 296 and Fig. 5 no. 1 (from grave 81)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. grave groups illustrated on ibid., Pl. XXXII d (ED I/II), Pl. XXXII c (ED II), and Pl. XXXIII b (ED IIIa). Colour slides of these photographs are included in the Abu Salabikh Slide Set published by the British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
27 Nissen, H. J., “Grabung in den Quadraten K/L XII in Uruk-Warka”, Baghdader Mitteilungen (henceforward BM) 5 (1970), 101–91 and Tf. 38–108Google Scholar; id., “Kurzgrabung im Quadrat I XXII”, in UVB 26 and 27 (1972), 90–7 and Tf. 60–2.
28 Nissen, , BM 5 (1970), Tf. 104Google Scholar and Nissen, , “Kurzgrabung”, UVB 26 and 27 (1972), Tf. 60Google Scholar. (No scale is given on this plate but it appears to be 1: 5 by comparison with BM 5, Tf. 104.Google Scholar)
29 Nissen, , BM 5 (1970), 141 and Tabelle 1Google Scholar.
30 Wright, , Administration, 63 and Fig. 22Google Scholar.
31 Ibid., 76–7.
32 Woolley, , UE II, 515Google Scholar, and Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 7Google Scholar.
33 Woolley lists only eighteen graves in total with type 108 and then itemizes the subtypes of 108 in only ten graves. According to this, no convex-based jars were found in the Early Dynastic III graves and only one each in the “Ur II” and Sargonid graves. Woolley, , UE II, 515Google Scholar.
34 Ubaid type LIX from grave 89 is only 11 cm high and I have therefore counted it in with type LXIII (5.3.6. Small Rimless Cups). Type LXII from grave 72 is only 8·5 cm high and is therefore also considered under 5.3.6.
35 Hall, and Woolley, , UE I, 178–9Google Scholar. Possibly the jar from grave 40 is really not the same type as the others as it is 35 cm tall while the others are 22 cm (grave 53), 18 cm (grave 67) and 20 cm (grave 82).
36 Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 6Google Scholar.
37 Cf. Schmidt, , MJ 22 (1931), Pl. XVI 3Google Scholar.
38 Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 6Google Scholar.
39 Postgate, , Iraq 38 (1976). 169 and Fig. 8 no. 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 MacKay, , Anthropology Memoirs (henceforward AM) I, 155 and Pl. LIV no. 57 and Pl. XLIV no. 11.52Google Scholar; Woolley, , UE II, pp. 514 and 516 types XXXIV and LVI = types 63 and 164Google Scholar; Nissen, , Königsfriedhof Tf. 6 and 8Google Scholar.
41 Woolley, , UE II, 516 type LVI = Ur type 164Google Scholar; 514 type XXXIV = Ur type 63. Cf. Nissen, , Königsfriedhof Tf. 6 and 8Google Scholar.
42 Woolley, , UE II, pp. 516–17Google Scholar; Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 7–8Google Scholar.
43 Wright, Administration, Fig. 18 c. Dr. Wright also notes that ring bases, while a minority type at Sakheri Sughir, become more popular in the later levels of ED I. Ibid., 76.
44 Delougaz, , OIP 63, Pl. 179 C.525.262cGoogle Scholar, is the spouted jar with a convex-base. The fourth digit of the jar number is “2”, however, which should indicate a flat base (“6” for convex). Possibly, therefore, more convex-based jars were found but classified with flat-based forms such as C.516.262 (not illustrated) and C.526.262 (Pl. 37 j and k and Pl. 180).
45 Moorey, P. R. S., “A Reconsideration of the Excavations on Tell Ingharra (East Kish) 1923–33”, Iraq 28 (1966), Pl. IX 1932.972CrossRefGoogle Scholar has a convex base. Flat-based jars are ibid., Pl. VI 1929.313, 1929.316, Pl. VII 1929.370, 1929.373, 1929.374, 1929.375. Pl. VIII 1929.308 has a round base and Pl. IX 1930.159 has a high ring base. For the dating of the graves to ED I and II see ibid., 39–41. Cf. Watelin, L. Ch., Excavations at Kish IV (Paris, 1934), Pl. I 2a, Figs. 4, 4 bisGoogle Scholar. For the jar from the “A” Cemetery see MacKay, , AM I, 29 and Pl. XIV 1Google Scholar.
46 Postgate, , Iraq 39 (1977), 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
47 Parrot, A., Tello (Paris, 1948), Fig. 30 4093Google Scholar.
48 Woolley, , UE II, 517Google Scholar; Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 9Google Scholar.
49 The jar type LXXVI from grave 92 had, in fact, a form of ring base and is therefore not included here.
50 See fn. 45 above.
51 Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 9Google Scholar. Seventeen spouted jars are type 209 from a total of 48 jars including types 204–8, 211 and 212.
52 Postgate, , Iraq 39 (1977), 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Heinrich, , Fara, Tf. 17a and Tf. 20aGoogle Scholar.
54 Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 9Google Scholar.
55 Ibid.
56 Postgate, , Iraq 39 (1977), 291 and Fig. 5 no. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 “Ibid., 291–2, Fig. 5 no. 8.
58 Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 9Google Scholar.
59 Heinrich, , Fara, Tf. 17b and Tf. 20dGoogle Scholar.
60 Type LXII from grave 72 should also be included as it is only 8·5 cm high.
61 According to Woolley, , UE II, 515Google Scholar, and Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 7Google Scholar: Ubaid type LXII = Ur type 109b; Ubaid type LXIII = Ur type 109c; Ubaid type LXVI (plus type LXXII) = Ur type 136; Ubaid type LXVII = Ur type 125; Ubaid type LXVIII = Ur type 109a. Type 109 is well represented in the ED III and Akkadian Periods; types 125 and 136 are not as common, but are found in both periods. It should be noted that Woolley was not consistent with his use of Ubaid type LXII. In grave 20 type LXII is 17 cm tall; in grave 62 one is 15 cm tall, and in grave 72 one is 8·5 cm tall.
62 Schmidt, , MJ 22 (1931), Pl. XV Fig. 1Google Scholar.
63 Diyala: Delougaz, , OIP 63, 82 and 95, Pl. 72 a–g, 73 a–d and h–i, Pl. 98 a–1Google Scholar. Kish: MacKay, , AM I, Pl. XV and LIIIGoogle Scholar type K. Abu Salabikh: Postgate, , Iraq 38 (1976), 164, 169 and Fig. 8 no. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar type K.
64 MacKay, , AM I, Pl. XV nos. 41–6, Pl. LIII nos. 13–18 type KAGoogle Scholar; Delougaz, , OIP 63, Pl. 150 B.175.224, Pl. 151 B.176.220D, 8.176.224a, B.176. 224b, B. 185.224, Pl. 160B.555.224, Pl. 161 B.575.224Google Scholar.
65 Woolley in describing grave 35 says this is the usual position for these cups (UE I, 194Google Scholar). Dr.Wright, (Administration, 85)Google Scholar repeats this point calling the cups “miniature jars”. (See his Table 8 for his statistics.) A review of the graves does not bear this point out, however. Of the sixteen graves in question, seven had no body (graves 10, 21, 22, 44, 65, 79, 89) and one is not illustrated but it sounds as if all the pots were near the head (grave 72). Six are in pottery groups away from the head (graves 20, 40, 53, 67, 51, 66). In only two graves are these cups near the head although other pottery groups are further away (graves 35, 56). (On p. 173 Woolley makes the more general observation that a bowl of stone, copper, or clay or a small vase of types LXIII–LXXIII might be in front of the lips. Of the six graves cited by him here, none had a cup of types LXIII–LXVIII by the mouth; grave 78 contained a small jar of type LXXIII which could have been near the head—the grave is not illustrated.)
66 University of Pennsylvania excavations, grave 5.
67 Diyala: Delougaz, , OIP 63, Pl. 157 B.535.240Google Scholar. Ur: According to Woolley, UE II, 515Google Scholar, and Nissen, , Königsfriedhof Tf. 7Google Scholar: there are five Akkadian examples of Ur type 128 (= Ubaid type LXX); there are one ED III and two Akkadian examples of Ur type 111 (= Ubaid type LXXI); there are four ED III and two Akkadian examples of Ur type 136 (= Ubaid type LXXII and LXVI); there are nine Akkadian examples of Ur type 129 (= Ubaid type LXXIII). (Possibly a rather different kind of jar was in fact classed under Ur type 129 than under Ubaid type LXXIII.)
68 Type XLIII is not included in this discussion as it is not listed in any of the grave inventories.
69 Kish: Moorey, R., Iraq 28 (1966), 48, Pl. VI 1929.379 and Pl. VII 1929.371CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Watelin, , Kish IV, 21, Fig. 4 and 31, Fig. 5Google Scholar. Abu Salabikh: Postgate, J. N., Iraq 39 (1977), 293–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Fig. 5 nos. 2 and 6.
70 Delougaz, , OIP 63, Pl. 74 1 B.665.540 (grave 94)Google Scholar; Pl. 164 B.664.570 (Archaic Shrine); Pl. 74m, Pl. 102 f and Pl. 159 B.545.540 (graves 125, 96, 89); Pl. 102 d B.544.560 (graves 103, 133); Pl. 102 g and Pl. 164 B.663.540D (Houses 3 and Temple Oval III).
71 According to Woolley, UE II, 514Google Scholar, and Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 5 and 6Google Scholar: there are four Akkadian and Ur III examples of Ur type 51 (= Ubaid type XLIV and XLVI), twelve Akkadian examples of Ur type 52 (= Ubaid type XLV and XLIII), eight Akkadian examples of Ur type 49 (= Ubaid type XLVIII and a related shape not found at Ubaid), and sixty examples of Ur type 50 (= Ubaid type XLIX and a related shape not found at Ubaid) of which all but seven are Akkadian or Ur III. (In fact the illustrations of Ur type 51a and 51b = Ubaid XLVI and XLIII and those of Ur 52a and b = Ubaid XLIV and XLV.) Clearly the suspicion arises that the ED II Ubaid types and the Akkadian—Ur III types are not really identical pottery types.
72 MacKay, , AM I, 35–6, 152–3, Pl. XVI and Pl. LIV Type NGoogle Scholar; Delougaz, , OIP 63, 99, Pls. 111 and 162Google Scholar.
73 In Fara grave 17 the bottle was inside a conical bowl in front of the chest. In Fara grave 24 the bottle was behind the shoulders. In Ubaid graves 6, 7, 29, 62 and 83 all pots, including the bottles, were by the head. In Ubaid grave 94 the bottle was with pots near the skull; other pots were further away. In Ubaid graves 60 and 70 the bottles were in groups away from the skull. In Ubaid graves 14, 81 and 93 the relation between the bottles and the skulls was not clear. In Khafaje grave 125 the bottle (no. 2) was behind the shoulders. In Khafaje graves 94 and 133 the bottles (nos. 5 and 22 respectively) were with pots near the head; other pots were found further away. In Khafaje grave 89 the bottle (no. 22) was in a group away from the skull. In Khafaje graves 96 and 103 the relation between the bottles and the skulls was not clear. Delougaz, et al., OIP 88, Figs. 67, 71, 88 and 91Google Scholar.
74 ED I—Ur: Woolley, C. L., The Early Periods, Ur Excavations IV (Philadelphia and London, 1934), Fig. 12 bisGoogle Scholar. ED II–III—Diyala: Delougaz, , OIP 63, Pl. 161 B.575.225Google Scholar. Kish: MacKay, , AM I, Pl. XV 15 and Pl. LII 32–4Google Scholar. Tello: de Genouillac, H., Fouilles de Telloh I. Epoques présargoniques (Paris, 1934), Pl. 58 2d, Pl. 60 2Google Scholar. Akkadian— Ur: Woolley, , UE II, type 253Google Scholar. Fara: University of Pennsylvania excavations FP 1122 from Pit II.
75 Delougaz, , OIP 63, 85Google Scholar.
76 Ur: Woolley, , UE II, type 242Google Scholar, and Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 9Google Scholar. Abu Salabikh: Moon, , Iraq 43 (1981), 70 and Fig. 13: 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fig. 10 for ED IIIa examples. Cf. fn. 25.
77 Kish: MacKay, , AM I, Pl. XIV Type E and Pl. LII Type EGoogle Scholar. Abu Salabikh: Postgate, , Iraq 38 (1976), Fig. 7 no. 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Iraq 39 (1977), 293Google Scholar. Ur: Woolley, , UE II, Pl. 266 types 240 and 241Google Scholar; Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 9Google Scholar.
78 Woolley, , UE II, 513Google Scholar; Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 5Google Scholar.
79 Heinrich, Fara, Abb. 41 F 2806.
80 Woolley, , UE II, 514Google Scholar; Nissen, , Königsfriedhof, Tf. 6Google Scholar.
81 Heinrich, Fara, Abb. 39 F 23; cf. F 22 on p. 46.
82 MacKay, , AM I, Pl. XVI type N 27Google Scholar. Moorey, , Iraq 28 (1966), Pl. VI 1929.332 and Pl. VIII 1929.309CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
83 Delougaz, , OIP 63, Pl. 160 B.556.520, B.566.560, Pl. 164 B.665.520, B.666.540aGoogle Scholar. The Akkadian example B.666.540a illustrated on Pl. 113e and drawn on Pl. 164 has a thicker rim than the Early Dynastic specimens.
84 Adams, , Heartland, 127Google Scholar.
85 Wright, , Administration, 79Google Scholar, notes that Woolley's dating is faulty, but does not attempt to correct it.
86 Hall, and Woolley, , UE I, 177–8Google Scholar.
87 Ibid., 177.
88 Ibid., 178–80.
89 Ibid., 178 and 195.
90 Ibid., 178–9.
91 Ibid., 179. At this point Woolley described graves 42, 62 and 68 merely as “earlier than some”, but they are combined with 88 and 15 when he draws up his list of early shapes on p. 180. In the final listing of graves by date on p. 186 grave 68 is classed as “middle”.
92 Ibid., 186. Those described by Woolley as “early” which are ED I, are graves 1, 7, 10, 15, 49, 74, 77 and 88. He omitted graves 3, 12, 13, 15b, 16, 55 and 58 which seem to be ED I to us (see Chart I). Grave 82 presents problems. As published by Woolley, (UE I, 201 and Fig. 65)Google Scholar it consists of two clusters of pottery and a skull. The two pots furthest to the northwest are ED I forms, XC (mistakenly labelled XL) and XCIII (mistakenly drawn on Pl. LX with only one of its four ledge handles). If it were not for these two pots the grave would appear to be fairly late in the cemetery sequence. It contains six type II conical bowls and only one type IV. It also contains two type XXIX jars which otherwise occur only in late (probably ED IIIa) graves (see 5.3.2.3). Furthermore it is the only ED I grave to include type LX, a jar occurring in 59% of ED II–IIIa graves. Possibly, as seems to be the case in grave 90, the earlier pots do not belong to the grave, but were left from an earlier grave or from an occupation level disturbed by grave 82. Other explanations are also possible (e.g. the pottery cluster to the east containing type XXIX is part of a later grave than that to the west).
93 Ibid., 186.
94 Ibid., compare 181 and 186.
95 Ibid., 180 and 195. Grave 28, noted as relatively late on p. 180 was finally classed as early (p. 193) together with grave 42 which lay under it (p. 195). There is some confusion here about grave 28 since in the map of the cemetery (Pl. XLII) grave 28 is shown about 10 m north of grave 42. Grave 40 is described as late (p. 195) because it disturbed graves 37 and 42.
96 Ibid., 178–9.
97 Ibid., 180–1.
98 Ibid., 181. The graves which fit Woolley's selection method for “late” graves are 4, 6, 20, 23, 35, 36, 40, 53, 56b, 57, 61, 67, 71, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 86, 89 and 93. The “late” graves selected by Woolley are 6, 18, 20, 21, 23, 36, 44, 53, 56, 59, 67, 68, 70, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 89, 90 and 91. (Grave 10 was noted as having both early and late types; Woolley ended by classing it as early.) This list is not identical with the final list of “late” graves on p. 186. That includes a “Second Dynasty” grave (18), larnax graves (22, 27, 31–4, 38, 39, 47, 66 and 72) and, for unknown reasons, graves 40, 51 and 69. Graves 68, 80, 89 and 91 were listed on p. 181 as including “late” types, but are classed as “middle” on p. 186. Reasons for this change were given with grave 80, but not with the others (pp. 181–2).
99 Ibid., 182–3 and 186.
