(Rova 2003 ; Schwartz 1985 ). Differences between assemblages in the Upper Tigris and
Upper Khabur have also been noted (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003 : 214 ; Rova 2000 );
painted decoration is more common in the Upper Tigris and eastern Khabur than in
the central and western Khabur. Painted examples are chaff-tempered, while incised
and excised versions have fine grit or no visible temper, rarely chaff. The meaning of
these variations remains unclear: fashion trends, technological innovation, or response
to shifts in political affiliation.
Metallic Ware from the western Upper Khabur-Balikh and Stoneware, a central
Khabur product, overlap in complex temporal and geographic ways with late Ninevite
5 ceramics. ‘True’ Metallic Ware has non-calcareous clay, but calcareous ‘imitations’
appear in significant numbers (Broekmans et al. 2006 ). Both reflect directed clay
acquisition and a high degree of craft specialisation and technological knowledge,
particularly high firing. Forms are distinctively angular, and the surface of Metallic Ware
vessels is usually dark red, implying that they may have been copper skeuomorphs (Pruβ
2000 ).
During EJ IV, northern ceramic assemblages include decorated fine-wares and
standardised angular jars and bowls (Oates et al. 2001 ). Occasional southern Akkadian
forms appear, but they are unusual pieces within a strongly northern idiom. EJ V
ceramic assemblages remain elusive and debated but include features also seen in the
Ur III south–comb-incised decoration and complex articulation of vessel rims–while
remaining distinct.
Seals and sealings of EJ I–II, contemporary with Ninevite 5 ceramics, were either
geometric or figurative (Marchetti 1998 ; Matthews 1997 ; Parayre 2003 ). The geometric
examples are ‘Piedmont Style’, ‘glazed steatite’ seals, tall narrow cylinders with cross-
hatching, herringbones, ladders, circles and undulating lines. These seals (and sealings)
skirt the edge of Sumer, from Susa along the Zagros foothills, including the effectively
Sumerian Diyala sites (Frankfort 1955 ), and across northern Mesopotamia. This wide
geographic spread has been identified as evidence for trade (Collon 2003 ; Parayre 2003 )
or cultural connectivity. Figurative seal designs overlap in time with the geometric and
persist into the second half of the third millennium BC. This style is more strongly
connected to ED II–III glyptic of Sumer: the most common scenes match those in the
south, animal–hero combats or banquets. However, the northern examples’ abbrevi-
ated engraving, composition and filling elements betray their local manufacture.
Sealings from Beydar are particularly distinctive, with local wagons, chariots and
equids within southern-inspired banquets and combats. The north may have borrowed
the scenes, but the style is descended from the rich, expressive northern stamp seals of
the fifth to fourth millennium BC(e.g., from Brak and Gawra).
Sealings are better represented from the north than are seals, the inverse of the
situation in Sumer. The Beydar and Mozan glyptic assemblages include many door
locks, while Brak’s and Nineveh’s are mostly from containers (Charvat 2005 ; Emberling
and McDonald 2001 ; Matthews 2003 ). Both sides of the redistribution system are thus
represented: container sealings reflecting incoming goods, broken door locks reflecting
controlled outflow of goods (Charvat 2005 ).
Everything changes with the arrival of the Akkadian imperial project. Seals and
sealings, as official objects, respond more quickly to political change than does
quotidian material culture. Seals and sealings from administrative complexes at Leilan
and Brak are dominated by heraldic combats in distinctive Late Akkadian style (Oates
–– Augusta McMahon ––