Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware are two types of painted pottery in northern Mesopotamia during the second millennium B.C. which have hitherto been treated independently of their respective archaeological contexts on the basis of their painted decoration. Both categories of painted wares were regarded as intrusive and were accordingly attributed to intrusive peoples - namel, the Hurrians. The present study reviews the evidence for Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware and examines the stratigraphic sequence at a number of key sites in north Mesopotamia and north Syria from the viewpoint of a wider Syro-Mesopotamian frame in order to determine the extent to which these two pottery categories were intrusive and that to which they were indigenous. The resulting modifica tions of the conventional Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware classifications show that while these two wares are quite distinct from each other in terms of origin, function, date, and distribution, neither category of painted pottery is entirely unprecedented in Mesopotamia and, neither, therefore, can be representative of intrusive peoples. Although the distinction in date and distribution between Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware may reflect changing spheres of political and commercial contacts, the discrepancy between the function of these two wares precludes the same explanation for their origin. Only Nuzi Ware may be con ceived as a product of political and economic conditions.

Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware are two types of painted pottery in northern Mesopotamia during the second millennium B.C. which have hitherto been treated independently of their respective archaeological contexts on the basis of their painted decoration. Both categories of painted wares were regarded as intrusive and were accordingly attributed to intrusive peoples - namel, the Hurrians. The present study reviews the evidence for Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware and examines the stratigraphic sequence at a number of key sites in north Mesopotamia and north Syria from the viewpoint of a wider Syro-Mesopotamian frame in order to determine the extent to which these two pottery categories were intrusive and that to which they were indigenous. The resulting modifica tions of the conventional Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware classifications show that while these two wares are quite distinct from each other in terms of origin, function, date, and distribution, neither category of painted pottery is entirely unprecedented in Mesopotamia and, neither, therefore, can be representative of intrusive peoples. Although the distinction in date and distribution between Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware may reflect changing spheres of political and commercial contacts, the discrepancy between the function of these two wares precludes the same explanation for their origin. Only Nuzi Ware may be con ceived as a product of political and economic conditions.