The present paper is an attempt to make clear the process of the development of religious buildings in northern Mesopotamia, that is, from the phase which might be called “religious structure” to that of “temple”. The process could be observed in relation to the settlement around the building. In this point of view, the development of religious buildings from Hassuna-Samarra period to Late Gawra period can be devided into the following five stages: I. The stage in which the religious structure occupies a part of a building (Hassuna-Samarra period). II. The stage in which the religious structure develops into a building (Halaf period). III. The stage in which the religious structure occupies a section in the settlement (Early Ubaid period). IV. The stage in which the section of the religious structure increases its importance in the settlement (Late Ubaid-Middle Gawra period). VI. The stage in which the religious structure becomes the center of the settlement (Late Gawra period). Through the above classification, we can observe the explicit process of the development of religious buildings: from the phase of “religious structcure” to that of “temple”, with the result that the fifth stage corresponds to the period in which “religious structure” has attained the constant function as “temple”.

抄録全体を表示

This is a short report of the excavations at the second mound of Tulul eth-Thalathat conducted by the Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition. But the space is so limited here, that the description had to be restricted merely to the typical architectural remains. It is devided in three parts.
First: the purpose and activities of the same Mission during these nine years.
Second: outline of the typical architectural remains of Tulul eth-Thalathat excavated in three seasons, 1956, 1957 and 1964.
Third: the meanings of these architectures in the architectural history of prehistoric Mesopotamia.

抄録全体を表示

In a thesis presented to “Near Eastern Studies dedicated to H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa”, I treated mainly archaeological features of a steatite vessel, allegedly found at the site of Susa, together with other analogous finds from Western Asia. Here I want to make a summary studies from the viewpoints of wider range on the formation of these kind of steatite vessels, transformation of their bas-relief decorations and the problems about their chronology and uses.
The steatite vessels in question have three features fundamental and common to each other: no. 1. taking form of cylinder or cone with a wide mouth, no. 2. decorating the whole surface of the vessel wall with designs or figures in bas-relief, no. 3. material being mostly steatite, but rarely such similar stone as serpentine. With these fundamental and common features, the steatite vessels are quite distinct from other stone vessels of ordinary uses contemporary with or antecedent to the former ones in Western Asia. So this fact, together with their bas-relief figures which seem to represent religious symbols or mythological worlds, suggests that steatite vessels were used especially for ritual purposes or offerings by worshippers to temples. Their frequent occurrences at temple sites of early Sumerian periods may well support these inferences.
The steatite vessels are classified in three main- and seven subtypes (A I, II; B I, II, III; C I, II), according to the components and elements of their figures and designs. 1) C I type is decorated only with designs which seem to originate from basketry made of such plant as reed or cattail, suggesting the form of the vessel itself came from reed or cattail basket. 2) C II type added a twisted rope design and/or building figures to C I type, the former design being interpreted as a sign of fertilizing water by some and the latter figures as those of temple by many scholars. Here we may recognize the first appearance of some religious elements in the steatite vessels. 3) A I type lost the basketry designs of C I, C II types, but left the twisted rope designs and/or the building figures of C II type, adding as the main decorative figures, something like mythological world where such wild beasts as goat, deer, bird and serpent, and human beings or gods in animal disguise, were represented quite freely and vividly in such chaotic positions and postures that A. Parrot called these figures ‘disorder series.’ 4) A II type the twisted rope designs and the building figures of C II, A I types and left only the mythological figures put more in order toward emblematic stylization. These mythological figures contain personified god of fertility with two serpents grasped in his hands as his symbols and two lions sitting in front of him as his attributes. 5) B type was characterized with figures of both doubled serpents and lions, being perhaps a kind of variation from the mythological figures of A I, II types. Here is none of personified god figure, but his symbol as doubled serpents in twisted form and his attributes as doubled lions outside the serpents show clearly symbolic existence of god relating to fertility, in these figures. But this B type is also sub-divided into two or three, B I being characterized with the serpents in sitting form, B II with those in standing posture and B III with most extravagantly developed figures of the doubled standing serpents and winged, crowned ‘Lion-bird’, which were represented on a large steatite vessel dedicated to the Ningišzida temple by Gudea of Lagash.
So we can see the transformation of the bas-relief figures of the steatite vessels almost from the beginning to the end, the process must be C I→C II→A I→A II→B I, II→B III, which suggests a chronological order of the steatite vessels as well, and moreover the process of the development and configuration of ideas about Ningišzida god in figurative

抄録全体を表示

It was generally thought that the Sumerian kingship appeared in their society which had been equal, when the Sumerian cities became to need the powerful director with the intensification of the disputes between the cities. H. Frankfort, Th. Jacobsen, S. N. Kramer, and some others generally thought like this, and concluded that the Sumerian kingship established at the Early Dynastic II.
But recently some scholars has begun to think earlier than the Early Dynastic II about the appearance of the kingship. They think that the centralization and the leading minority was rather suggested in the Sumerian great enterprises as the river improvements, the irrigation, and so on, though H. Frankfort thought them useful for strengthening the unity of the community.
I consider the establishment of the Sumerian kingship from the development of the temple architecture.
The Sumerian temple architecture deriving from the small shrines at Eridu developed into the gigantic temples of Uruk at the late Uruk period (c. 3000 B. C.). But after this period the precincts became more extensive and to be enclosed with the walls on the one hand, the temple architecture itself was inclined to be rather small, and to be built on a high terrace, that famous ziggurat, on the other hand. Almost all the great temples at the Early Dynastic period took this style, and this suggests the separation of the grades in the Sumerian society, that is to say the privileged class to be able to use the temple on the large terrace, and the mass to be able to approach only under the ziggurat. The former intervened between the mass and the great gods, and grasped the gods' will in their hands. The most powerful man of the privileged class became their king.
And so the Sumerian kingship already appeared at the late Uruk period, that is earlier than the period when H. Frankfort and some others suggested.

抄録全体を表示

The author took part in the excavation at Mound No. 2 of Telul eth-Thalathat in 1964. He studied the material found from the basal two levels of the mound. The assemblage of XV, XVI levels of Telul eth-Thalathat is quite similar to those of Hassuna Ia, Matarrah lower levels and Ali Agha. It has been said that this assemblage is the oldest Hassuna phase (neolithic Hassuna). But the auther insists to name it “Thalathat phase” and to distinguish it from Hassuna phase.
Thalathat phase is the oldest one in northern Mesopotamia and it flourished in the sixth millenium B. C. At that time, there were several distinguished culture-areas in the west Asia. One of them was the northern Mesopotamia Culture. Jarmo site was a member of another culture-area i. e. Mortensen's “Zagros group.”
The now established chronological table is wrong because it does not classify the two culture-areas. The author denies every reason that was thought to prove Jarmo phase was older than neolithic Hassuna phase. And he reached a conclusion that Jarmo phase and Thalathat (neolithic Hassuna) phase were flourished about the same time in each culture-area.

抄録全体を表示

Iraq or ancient Mesopotamia is one of the richest treasuries of archaeology. From eighteenth century, inspiring by the Bible or religious faith many Europeans visited here and remained their account of the trip. It is, however, from 1899 of R. Koldeway's excavation of Babylon that a comprehensive and scientific archaeological survey begun to start. Since mid-twenties century there were continuously remarkable excavations held by many famous foreign archaeologists.
After independence of the kingdom of Iraq, there brought up several Iraqi archaeologists. During the World War II, these young archaeologists carried out the surveys of some sites on their own country. Tell Uquir, Deir, Aqar Quf, Hassuna are their brilliant achievements.
Survey of Tell as-Sawwan, “Mound of the Flints”, is one of the most important excavations recently held in Iraq. The site is located some ten kilometers south of Samarra on the eastern bank of the middle Tigris river. The site was first noted by Ernest Herzfeld in 1911. Operations carried out five seasons by Behnam Abu as-Soof and others under the auspices of Directerate General of Antiquity since 1964 and not finished until now.
There were five main building-levels and these were numbers I-V from the top downwards. The special feature identified on the site consists of an artificial ditch cut into the natural conglomerate underlying the mound, forming three sides of a square round the eastern side of mound B. It may be regarded of an early defensive system. The pottery is classified 1) coarse ware 2) semi-corase ware 3) fine ware 4) incised, painted, incised-painted ware. Top two levels belong to Samarran type and levels IV and V are Hassunan type. In level III the incised Hassuna ware becomes very popular, but this phase is transitional pierod from Hassuna to Samarra pottery. The most remarkable objects were ‘mother-goddess’ statuettes made of clay or creamy alabaster, using clearly as cult objects.
The significance of Tell as-Sawwan are as follows: 1) in view of Tell as-Sawwan's geographical position, there was a reasonable prospect of cultural contacts between northern and southern Iraq during the sixth millennium B. C. 2) The pottery discovered on the site corresponds fairly closely to the standard Hassuna-Samarra repetoire which is known from Hassuna itself, and the mixture in levels III and II showed that Hassunan type gradually replaced Samarran type without cultural interruption. This also indicates there was no abrupt change of population in the area during this period.
As excavation has not finished, it is impossible to describe full account of this site. But it may provide answers to several important problems of Mesopotamian prehistory after excavation finishes.

抄録全体を表示

　馬の家畜化の始まりについては,ウクライナのデレイフカの遺物調査から,BC4,000年頃に馬が役畜として使用された可能性が高まつている。　一方,車馬の利用については,メソポタミアで,BC4,000年紀のウルクIVa層出土の絵文字にその車輪の表現が見られる。その後シュールのウル王朝の資料等には,板を用いた車輪が見られ,戦車にもう少し機動力をもたせたスポーク式車輪が登場するようになった。このような車輪の改良,方が多い。　ところでオリエントでは,伝統的にやロバに車を引かせており,馬への騎乗も,牛ロバへの騎乗に続くものであった。そしてBC1,500年頃から,騎馬の風習がユーラシアの草原士帯から伝播し,西アジアでもルリスタン青銅器戈化の金属の馬性の銜が発明されると,より力の強い馬の制御も一段と有利となった。　オリエントでは車行に遅れて導入された騎行も,しだいに周辺の文明圏,エジプト,ギリシア,そしてインドへと伝播していった。　これらの車行・騎行の様子は,アッシリアや古代ギリシアの美術・考古資料に数多く表現されており,また実際の車馬の遺物も出土している。　さてユーラシアの草原地帯では,BC2,000年紀には騎行が盛んになったと考えられているが,文献上に登場するのは,ずっと後のことである。BC8世紀頃からアッシリアの文献に記されたキンメル人,続いてBC7世紀には本格的な遊牧騎馬民族スキタイが登場する。このような遊牧騎馬民族は,ユーラシアのステップ地帯の東西に興り,黒海周辺ではスキタイ,サルマタイ,中央アジアにはサカ,月氏,そして東は匈奴などが勢力を奮った。これらの騎馬民族の生活,習俗は,黒海周辺やアルタイ山中の多くのクルガン(墳墓)出土の黄金製品などに見ることができる。　中国での馬の家畜化は,神話によると夏王朝以前にさかのぼるとされるが,殷商代(BC1,500年)以前に考古学的な証拠はないとされる。そして実際の馬車は,河南省安陽市から殷商代のものが見つかっており,また同時代の甲骨文字には,既に馬車の表現が見られる。　ところで東アジアの馬車は,基本的には西アジアの馬車と一致するが,馬車のスポークは東アジアのものに多数のスポークが見られ,とくにステップ地帯にはその古い証拠が発見されている。この馬車は,中国で周代に発展を遂げ,秦代にはその頂点とも言える始皇帝の銅車馬が出土している。この後,中国を統一した漢は,伝統的な重装歩兵と戦車から成る軍隊を改革,同様な騎馬軍団を組織,ついにBC101年には,西方の汗血馬,または天馬と呼ばれる名馬を入手する。その名馬の図像は,以降,壁画や俑に多く表現されるようになった。　朝鮮半島へも中国の影響が見られ,楽浪郡跡から車馬具が出土している。一方,半島北部は,北方からの騎馬民族の影響を受けていたと考えられるが,半島でも三国時代(高句麗,新羅,百済)に入ると騎馬の風習が盛んになる。その様子は高句麗壁画に見られ,実際の馬胄も出土。そしてこの馬胄やその他の馬具は,5世紀以降には,日本にも伝えられるようになった。こうしてもたらされた馬具は,その後の日本の馬具の文化を開花させることとなった。　最後に,このたび美術・考古資料により古代の騎行・車行について,紹介してきたが,馬と人間の織りなす壮大な歴史や文化を紹介するには,やや図版不足が否めなかった。但し,近年の研究成果も含めて,その一端なりとも紹介できたと思う。　ところでそれぞれの資料に表わされた馬の図像については,誇張されたり,形式化されたものも多い。また馬と人間の歴史を見ても,馬は,当時の支配者達によって求められ,何十回となく移動され,改良されたことが文献上からも推測される。　よって今後は,近年著しく発展を遂げた科学技術を用いた考古学的なアプローチと併せ,文献上による人の手に成る移動も抑えながら,古代の馬の実像と,騎行・車行の歴史に迫まれることを望みたい。

抄録全体を表示