THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TEPE 



GAWRA 



By E. a. Speisek 

 Universitji of Pcnnsiilvania 



[With 6 plates] 



As recently as the year 1927 the name Tepe Gawra meant nothin^i; 

 at all to the archeolo<5ical world. If it had appeared in print, Near 

 Eastern specialists would promptly have recognized in it a designa- 

 tion of some ancient mound. To many of them the term fepe, instead 

 of the Arabic tell ^ would have conveyed the indication that the 

 mound in question must be sought in Turkish, Kurdish, or Persian 

 territory. Not a few might have given gawra its correct equivalent 

 of " great." But all this is purely hypothetical. The " Great Mound " 

 had not been mentioned by name in the scientific literature devoted 

 to ancient remains.^ Though its location was occasionally noted, 

 for an artificial hill rising to a height of more than 70 feet is not 

 easily overlooked, the site remained anonymous even on the most 

 elaborate survey maps. Only in a few neighboring villages, to the 

 north of the Mesopotamian city of ]\Iosul (fig. 1), did the name 

 stand for a definite landmark. In the city itself, barely 15 miles 

 away, the mound is still called after one Ali Beg, a former owner 

 of the district. The nominal " greatness " of Tepe Gawra was thus 

 a matter of strictly local terminology. 



Now within the brief space of 7 years the situation has undergone 

 a startling change. Today Gawra is one of the most frequently 

 mentioned sites in Iraq. References to this place are to be found not 

 only in the publications of Mesopotamian archeologists, but also 

 in general works on the ancient civilizations of the Near East.-"^ Such 

 a rapid rise to prominence from all but complete obscurit}' cannot 



1 In rf-nlity, the word toll occurs In the Old Testament, and it goes back to Akkadian 

 (Assyrian) tillu " ruin." 



* The irrepressible Layard opened some trenches at Gawra three-quarters of a century 

 afro in search of Assyrian sculptures, wliich of course were not there. But he does not 

 mention the mound by name. See his Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, 

 p. ISS, 1853. 



!'»See now Chllde, New Light on the Most Ancient East, pp. 2G0-268, 1934. 



415 



