Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 19 – uploaded by Jaafar Jotheri

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 2.8: Recognition of palaeochannels and archaeological sites according to their texture in QuickBird images. (A) QuickBird image showing palaeochannel and archaeological sites located to the south of Baghdad. (B) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological sites of the image in (A). (C) QuickBird image showing the palaeochannel and an archaeological site in part of the image in (A). (D) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological sites of the image in (C). (E) Field photograph showing site of the image in (C). (F) Field photograph showing Sasanian canal visible in image (C).

Figure 2 8: Recognition of palaeochannels and archaeological sites according to their texture in QuickBird images. (A) QuickBird image showing palaeochannel and archaeological sites located to the south of Baghdad. (B) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological sites of the image in (A). (C) QuickBird image showing the palaeochannel and an archaeological site in part of the image in (A). (D) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological sites of the image in (C). (E) Field photograph showing site of the image in (C). (F) Field photograph showing Sasanian canal visible in image (C).

Related Figures (157)

Figure 1.1: General tectonic map of Iraq showing location of the Mesopotamian floodplain amongst others tectonic regions. Modified after Yacoub (2011). here because they may have different meanings in other literature. Mesopotamia: The term “Mesopotamia” was first used by the ancient Greeks to refer to the land that hosted the world’s first civilization lying between the Tigris and the Euphrates. As generally used, the term covers Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey and the lowlands of southwestern Iran. However, in the present study, only the floodplain of South Mesopotamia, referring to the alluvial plain of the Tigris and the Euphrates and their distributaries which covers most of the central and southern parts of Iraq, is considered. The area of this floodplain (Figs. 1.1 and 1.2) is approximately 116,000 km? in which the local economy was / is based upon channel- fed agriculture, while North Mesopotamian communities were reliant upon rain-fed agriculture.
Figure 1.1: General tectonic map of Iraq showing location of the Mesopotamian floodplain amongst others tectonic regions. Modified after Yacoub (2011). here because they may have different meanings in other literature. Mesopotamia: The term “Mesopotamia” was first used by the ancient Greeks to refer to the land that hosted the world’s first civilization lying between the Tigris and the Euphrates. As generally used, the term covers Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey and the lowlands of southwestern Iran. However, in the present study, only the floodplain of South Mesopotamia, referring to the alluvial plain of the Tigris and the Euphrates and their distributaries which covers most of the central and southern parts of Iraq, is considered. The area of this floodplain (Figs. 1.1 and 1.2) is approximately 116,000 km? in which the local economy was / is based upon channel- fed agriculture, while North Mesopotamian communities were reliant upon rain-fed agriculture.
Figure 1.2: Regional geological cross sections in the Mesopotamian floodplain showing thicknesses of the Pliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene sediments. All of the channels and archaeological sites are located within the top few metres of the Holocene. Modified after Yacoub (2011).
Figure 1.2: Regional geological cross sections in the Mesopotamian floodplain showing thicknesses of the Pliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene sediments. All of the channels and archaeological sites are located within the top few metres of the Holocene. Modified after Yacoub (2011).
Figure 1.3: A map showing how the Mesopotamian floodplain is bounded by several alluvial fans and the archaeological sites are distributed alongside it.
Figure 1.3: A map showing how the Mesopotamian floodplain is bounded by several alluvial fans and the archaeological sites are distributed alongside it.
Figure 1.4: Sketch showing the differences between the common rivers meander belt in the Mesopotamian floodplain (A) a river running in a confined meander belt and (B) a river running in an unconfined meander belt. The latter is more likely to avulse in comparison with the former.
Figure 1.4: Sketch showing the differences between the common rivers meander belt in the Mesopotamian floodplain (A) a river running in a confined meander belt and (B) a river running in an unconfined meander belt. The latter is more likely to avulse in comparison with the former.
Table 1.2: shows the channels and their discharges, gradients, and sensuosities. The discharge measurement is after the IMWR (2005) while the gradient and sinuosity have been calculated in the parent study. Generally, the Tigris river is higher than the Euphrates in discharge, gradient, and sinuosity. The Dhuluiya to Kut reach has the greatest combination of sinuosity and gradient in relation to other reaches in the river, while the reach from Fat’hah to Samara has the lowest sinuosity and the largest discharge. The Shinifiyah to Qurnah is the most sinuous reach, while the Diyala channel is the most sinuous channel in the whole floodplain. The Shatt-al-Arab has the lowest gradient and sinuosity. The Adhaim channel has the highest gradient and the second highest sinuosity after the Diyala, but the lowest discharge.
Table 1.2: shows the channels and their discharges, gradients, and sensuosities. The discharge measurement is after the IMWR (2005) while the gradient and sinuosity have been calculated in the parent study. Generally, the Tigris river is higher than the Euphrates in discharge, gradient, and sinuosity. The Dhuluiya to Kut reach has the greatest combination of sinuosity and gradient in relation to other reaches in the river, while the reach from Fat’hah to Samara has the lowest sinuosity and the largest discharge. The Shinifiyah to Qurnah is the most sinuous reach, while the Diyala channel is the most sinuous channel in the whole floodplain. The Shatt-al-Arab has the lowest gradient and sinuosity. The Adhaim channel has the highest gradient and the second highest sinuosity after the Diyala, but the lowest discharge.
Figure 1.8: Classification of channel based on pattern and type of sediment load with associated variables and relative stability (redrawn from Schumm, 1981)
Figure 1.8: Classification of channel based on pattern and type of sediment load with associated variables and relative stability (redrawn from Schumm, 1981)
Figure 1.10: Map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing the location of the previous archaeological sites and palaeochannel surveys.
Figure 1.10: Map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing the location of the previous archaeological sites and palaeochannel surveys.
Figure 1.11: Map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing how the study area has been divided into several subareas in the present study.
Figure 1.11: Map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing how the study area has been divided into several subareas in the present study.
Figure 2.2: Example of elevated topography associated with a palaeochannel from an area to the south of Hilla, as i appears in SRTM data. anomalies, such as mounds and levees in other images. ‘one refers to the relative brightness i.e. strength of reflectance and colour of objects in al mage. Palaeochannel levees (Fig. 2.4) and the isolated islands of archaeological mounds (Fig .5 and Fig. 2.6) can be recognized in QuickBird images because of their differences in tone an olour. In QuickBird imagery, the essential element for distinguishing between different object yr features is the colour of the objects (Fig. 2.7A), whereas in CORONA, in the negative format, i s the brightness of the objects (Fig. 2.7B). In several cases it is difficult to recogniz yalaeochannels in QuickBird images (Fig.2.7A) because there is not enough relative brightness ‘Therefore CORONA images (Fig. 2.7B) proved better to trace the feature (Fig.2.7C and7D) Jowever, in some places, the advantage of cultivation of the land is evident, leading to change n the tone of the irrigated land and producing archaeological mounds, which become mor ecognisable as the farmer develops the area around the site, making it easy to see th inomalies, such as mounds and levees in other images.
Figure 2.2: Example of elevated topography associated with a palaeochannel from an area to the south of Hilla, as i appears in SRTM data. anomalies, such as mounds and levees in other images. ‘one refers to the relative brightness i.e. strength of reflectance and colour of objects in al mage. Palaeochannel levees (Fig. 2.4) and the isolated islands of archaeological mounds (Fig .5 and Fig. 2.6) can be recognized in QuickBird images because of their differences in tone an olour. In QuickBird imagery, the essential element for distinguishing between different object yr features is the colour of the objects (Fig. 2.7A), whereas in CORONA, in the negative format, i s the brightness of the objects (Fig. 2.7B). In several cases it is difficult to recogniz yalaeochannels in QuickBird images (Fig.2.7A) because there is not enough relative brightness ‘Therefore CORONA images (Fig. 2.7B) proved better to trace the feature (Fig.2.7C and7D) Jowever, in some places, the advantage of cultivation of the land is evident, leading to change n the tone of the irrigated land and producing archaeological mounds, which become mor ecognisable as the farmer develops the area around the site, making it easy to see th inomalies, such as mounds and levees in other images.
Figure 2.4: Example of a palaeochannel to the south of Baqubah City (Fig. 1), highlighted by its tone in QuickBirc imagery.
Figure 2.4: Example of a palaeochannel to the south of Baqubah City (Fig. 1), highlighted by its tone in QuickBirc imagery.
Figure 2.5: Example of an archaeological mound surrounded by marsh south of Iraq, utilising its tone in QuickBirc imagery.
Figure 2.5: Example of an archaeological mound surrounded by marsh south of Iraq, utilising its tone in QuickBirc imagery.
Figure 2.6: Example of an archaeological mound to the north of Hilla city, utilising its tone in QuickBird imagery.
Figure 2.6: Example of an archaeological mound to the north of Hilla city, utilising its tone in QuickBird imagery.
Figure 2.7: Example of a crevasse splay alongside a palaeochannel to the northeast of Samawah city, identified by their tone. (A) QuickBird image. (B) CORONA image. (C) and (D) Sketch showing tracing of the palaeochannel and crevasse splay. Figure 2.7: Example of a crevasse splay alongside a palaeochannel to the northeast of Samawah city, identified by
Figure 2.7: Example of a crevasse splay alongside a palaeochannel to the northeast of Samawah city, identified by their tone. (A) QuickBird image. (B) CORONA image. (C) and (D) Sketch showing tracing of the palaeochannel and crevasse splay. Figure 2.7: Example of a crevasse splay alongside a palaeochannel to the northeast of Samawah city, identified by
Figure 2.9: Recognition of palaeochannel and archaeological sites according to their texture. (A) QuickBird images showing palaeochannel meanders north of Kut City. (B) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel meanders.
Figure 2.9: Recognition of palaeochannel and archaeological sites according to their texture. (A) QuickBird images showing palaeochannel meanders north of Kut City. (B) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel meanders.
Figure 2.10: Recognition of gradual and lateral “combing” of the river meander by their texture. (A) QuickBird images showing modern river meanders of the Hilla, north of Diwaniya city. (B) Sketch showing the identified meander lines and the relative ages of the houses (numbered); the oldest house was built close to the oldest maandar lino | “ Figure 2.10: Recognition of gradual and lateral “combing” of the river meander by their texture. (A) QuickBird
Figure 2.10: Recognition of gradual and lateral “combing” of the river meander by their texture. (A) QuickBird images showing modern river meanders of the Hilla, north of Diwaniya city. (B) Sketch showing the identified meander lines and the relative ages of the houses (numbered); the oldest house was built close to the oldest maandar lino | “ Figure 2.10: Recognition of gradual and lateral “combing” of the river meander by their texture. (A) QuickBird
Figure 2.11: Recognition of palaeochannel meander scarps according to their texture. (A) CORONA image showing palaeochannels and archaeological sites, west of Hilla city (B) QuickBird image for the same area; note it is difficult to see the palaeochannel scarp, emphasizing the extent of landscape change since the late 1960s, and its impact upon the preservation of archaeological and geomorphological evidence.. (C) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological site.
Figure 2.11: Recognition of palaeochannel meander scarps according to their texture. (A) CORONA image showing palaeochannels and archaeological sites, west of Hilla city (B) QuickBird image for the same area; note it is difficult to see the palaeochannel scarp, emphasizing the extent of landscape change since the late 1960s, and its impact upon the preservation of archaeological and geomorphological evidence.. (C) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological site.
Figure 2.12: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its drainage pattern. (A) QuickBird image showing drainage pattern on a site mound, west of Baghdad (B) Sketch showing the identified drainage pattern on the archaeological site.
Figure 2.12: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its drainage pattern. (A) QuickBird image showing drainage pattern on a site mound, west of Baghdad (B) Sketch showing the identified drainage pattern on the archaeological site.
Figure 2.13: Recognition of an archaeological site according to drainage pattern around it. (A) QuickBird image showing drainage pattern around the site mounds, east of Nasiriya, formerly covered Chibayish marsh. (B) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological site.
Figure 2.13: Recognition of an archaeological site according to drainage pattern around it. (A) QuickBird image showing drainage pattern around the site mounds, east of Nasiriya, formerly covered Chibayish marsh. (B) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological site.
Figure 2.14: Recognition of an archaeological site according to drainage pattern around it. (A) CORONA image showing drainage pattern around the site mounds south of Nasiriya, covered by Hammar marsh. (B) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological sites.
Figure 2.14: Recognition of an archaeological site according to drainage pattern around it. (A) CORONA image showing drainage pattern around the site mounds south of Nasiriya, covered by Hammar marsh. (B) Sketch showing the identified palaeochannel and archaeological sites.
Figure 2.15: Recognition of an archaeological site according to drainage pattern around it. (A) QuickBird image showing drainage pattern around a site mound North of Najaf city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological sites.
Figure 2.15: Recognition of an archaeological site according to drainage pattern around it. (A) QuickBird image showing drainage pattern around a site mound North of Najaf city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological sites.
Figure 2.16: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its shape. (A) QuickBird image showing a typic rectangular earthen rampart with an internal area that is lower in absolute height than the wall around it of < archaeological site south east of Hilla city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological sites.
Figure 2.16: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its shape. (A) QuickBird image showing a typic rectangular earthen rampart with an internal area that is lower in absolute height than the wall around it of < archaeological site south east of Hilla city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological sites.
Figure 2.17: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its shape. (A) QuickBird image showing foundations of archaeological site north east of Najaf city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site.
Figure 2.17: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its shape. (A) QuickBird image showing foundations of archaeological site north east of Najaf city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site.
Figure 2.18: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its shape. (A) QuickBird image showing two loops of archaeological mound divided by palaeochannel south east of Kut city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site.
Figure 2.18: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its shape. (A) QuickBird image showing two loops of archaeological mound divided by palaeochannel south east of Kut city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site.
Figure 2.19: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its shape. (A) QuickBird image showing deviation of modern canal close to the archaeological mound south of Baghdad. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site. (C and D) QuickBird image showing archaeological sites associated with palaeochannel when the shapes of the associated sites are elongated ellipsoid shapes and arranged parallel to the channel (E and F) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of the image.
Figure 2.19: Recognition of an archaeological site according to its shape. (A) QuickBird image showing deviation of modern canal close to the archaeological mound south of Baghdad. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site. (C and D) QuickBird image showing archaeological sites associated with palaeochannel when the shapes of the associated sites are elongated ellipsoid shapes and arranged parallel to the channel (E and F) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of the image.
Figure 2.20: Recognition of an archaeological site according to shadow. (A) QuickBird image showing high trees around an archaeological site South of Baghdad. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site. Figure 2.20: Recognition of an archaeological site according to shadow. (A) QuickBird image showing high trees
Figure 2.20: Recognition of an archaeological site according to shadow. (A) QuickBird image showing high trees around an archaeological site South of Baghdad. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site. Figure 2.20: Recognition of an archaeological site according to shadow. (A) QuickBird image showing high trees
Figure 2.21: Recognition of an archaeological site according to shadow. (A) QuickBird image showing a shrine over an archaeological site South of Diwaniya city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site.
Figure 2.21: Recognition of an archaeological site according to shadow. (A) QuickBird image showing a shrine over an archaeological site South of Diwaniya city. (B) Sketch showing the identified archaeological site.
Figure 2.23: Potential pitfalls in the recognition of an archaeological site according to its size. (A) QuickBird image showing recent manually-dug mound south of Hilla city. It is not an archaeological site and this is where comparing recent imagery with Corona images is valuable, as it will highlight things that are present in recent imagery but which are not indicated on Corona and so are probably modern features. (B) Sketch showing the identified mound. (C) Field photograph showing the mound.
Figure 2.23: Potential pitfalls in the recognition of an archaeological site according to its size. (A) QuickBird image showing recent manually-dug mound south of Hilla city. It is not an archaeological site and this is where comparing recent imagery with Corona images is valuable, as it will highlight things that are present in recent imagery but which are not indicated on Corona and so are probably modern features. (B) Sketch showing the identified mound. (C) Field photograph showing the mound.
Figure 2.24: Recognition of an archaeological site according to situation. (A) QuickBird image showing relatively recent looting holes on an archaeological site North of Samawah city. (B) Sketch showing the identified mound.
Figure 2.24: Recognition of an archaeological site according to situation. (A) QuickBird image showing relatively recent looting holes on an archaeological site North of Samawah city. (B) Sketch showing the identified mound.
Figure 2.25: Recognition of an archaeological site according to situation. (A) QuickBird image showing modern urban development around an archaeological site north east of Hilla city. (B) Sketch showing the identified mound.
Figure 2.25: Recognition of an archaeological site according to situation. (A) QuickBird image showing modern urban development around an archaeological site north east of Hilla city. (B) Sketch showing the identified mound.
Crevasse splay Palaeochannel scrap Modern Tigris Archaeological site Modern settlement
Crevasse splay Palaeochannel scrap Modern Tigris Archaeological site Modern settlement
Figure 2.27: Recognition of an archaeological site according to situation. (A) QuickBird image showing modern development over palaeochannel levees north of Diwaniya city. (B) CORONA image for the same location before the houses were built. (C) Sketch showing the identified levee. (D) Field photograph showing part of this village and the palaeochannel levee.
Figure 2.27: Recognition of an archaeological site according to situation. (A) QuickBird image showing modern development over palaeochannel levees north of Diwaniya city. (B) CORONA image for the same location before the houses were built. (C) Sketch showing the identified levee. (D) Field photograph showing part of this village and the palaeochannel levee.
Figure 2.28: SRTM map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing all the identified palaeochannels in the present study.
Figure 2.28: SRTM map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing all the identified palaeochannels in the present study.
Figure 2.29: SRTM map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing all the ~eight thousand identified archaeologica sites in the present study.
Figure 2.29: SRTM map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing all the ~eight thousand identified archaeologica sites in the present study.
Figure 2.30: SRTM map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing all the palaeochannels and the archaeological sites palaeochannels in the present study.
Figure 2.30: SRTM map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing all the palaeochannels and the archaeological sites palaeochannels in the present study.
Figure 2.31: SRTM location map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing the boreholes and the groundtruthing tracks that have been carried out in the present study.
Figure 2.31: SRTM location map of the Mesopotamian floodplain showing the boreholes and the groundtruthing tracks that have been carried out in the present study.
Table 2.1: Authors of the historical texts of the present study
Table 2.1: Authors of the historical texts of the present study
Table 2.2: Radiocarbon dates employed in the present study.
Table 2.2: Radiocarbon dates employed in the present study.
Table 2.3: Periods of occupations of some key archaeological sites in the present study (Adams, 1981 and General Directorate of Antiquates, 1976)
Table 2.3: Periods of occupations of some key archaeological sites in the present study (Adams, 1981 and General Directorate of Antiquates, 1976)
Figure 3.1: Location map showing the Najaf area. Five main courses of the Euphrates, in five different periods have been identified, described anc
Figure 3.1: Location map showing the Najaf area. Five main courses of the Euphrates, in five different periods have been identified, described anc
Figure 3.8: SRTM location map showing the detailed figures of the Najaf area.
Figure 3.8: SRTM location map showing the detailed figures of the Najaf area.
Figure 3.9: SRTM data (A) for the north part of the present study (see Figure 3.8 for location) showing how palaeochannel levees are elevated in relation to the surrounding floodplain. Main modern channels are indicated by solid lines; palaeochannels by dotted lines. QuickBird images (B-E) and interpretations of features on these images (F-l), respectively. The QuickBird images show selected examples of relict channel meander loops and a series of human settlements, which are evidence that the channel was present at the time of settlement.
Figure 3.9: SRTM data (A) for the north part of the present study (see Figure 3.8 for location) showing how palaeochannel levees are elevated in relation to the surrounding floodplain. Main modern channels are indicated by solid lines; palaeochannels by dotted lines. QuickBird images (B-E) and interpretations of features on these images (F-l), respectively. The QuickBird images show selected examples of relict channel meander loops and a series of human settlements, which are evidence that the channel was present at the time of settlement.
Figure 3.10 :( A) SRTM data of the middle part of the present study showing palaeochannel levees that have relatively high topographic elevations in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) QuickBird images (2006) show the locations of palaeochannel levees. (C) Later historical map (Selby et.al, 1885) showing palaeochannel levees covered by marshes and the growth of the Shamiyah and Kufa distributary channels. (D) Landsat ETM (2000) image showing palaeochannel levees covered by younger marshes and modern settlements. (E) QuickBird images (2006) showing the palaeochannels after most of the marshes dried up. (F)Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of the image B. (G) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of the image E.
Figure 3.10 :( A) SRTM data of the middle part of the present study showing palaeochannel levees that have relatively high topographic elevations in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) QuickBird images (2006) show the locations of palaeochannel levees. (C) Later historical map (Selby et.al, 1885) showing palaeochannel levees covered by marshes and the growth of the Shamiyah and Kufa distributary channels. (D) Landsat ETM (2000) image showing palaeochannel levees covered by younger marshes and modern settlements. (E) QuickBird images (2006) showing the palaeochannels after most of the marshes dried up. (F)Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of the image B. (G) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of the image E.
Figure 3.11: (A) QuickBird image showing the Khalid and one of the Lower Sura distributary palaeochannels. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Archaeological foundations from the Parthian period to the Islamic period. (C) Field photograph showing the palaeochannel levees. (D) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH1, BH8/60, and BH3 boreholes.
Figure 3.11: (A) QuickBird image showing the Khalid and one of the Lower Sura distributary palaeochannels. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Archaeological foundations from the Parthian period to the Islamic period. (C) Field photograph showing the palaeochannel levees. (D) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH1, BH8/60, and BH3 boreholes.
Figure 3.12: (A) QuickBird image showing the Bikasi palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing a palaeochannel between two loops of a site. (D) Field photograph showing the Bikasi palaeochannels. (E) Field photograph showing buried foundation belong the Bikasi site. (F) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH22, BH23, and BH24 boreholes.
Figure 3.12: (A) QuickBird image showing the Bikasi palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing a palaeochannel between two loops of a site. (D) Field photograph showing the Bikasi palaeochannels. (E) Field photograph showing buried foundation belong the Bikasi site. (F) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH22, BH23, and BH24 boreholes.
Figure 3.13: (A) CORONA image showing the Khalid palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing a palaeochannel between two loops of a site. (D) Field photograph showing the Khalid palaeochannel levees and the location of BH20. (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH19, BH20, and BH21 boreholes. Figure 3.13: (A) CORONA image showing the Khalid palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including
Figure 3.13: (A) CORONA image showing the Khalid palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing a palaeochannel between two loops of a site. (D) Field photograph showing the Khalid palaeochannel levees and the location of BH20. (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH19, BH20, and BH21 boreholes. Figure 3.13: (A) CORONA image showing the Khalid palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including
Figure 3.14: SRTM data (A) for the south part of the study area showing how palaeochannel levees are elevated in relation to the surrounding floodplain. QuickBird images (B & C) and interpretations of surface feature (D & E), respectively. SRTM data (F) for the west part of the study area showing palaeochannel levees. QuickBird image (G) and interpretations of the surface features (H).
Figure 3.14: SRTM data (A) for the south part of the study area showing how palaeochannel levees are elevated in relation to the surrounding floodplain. QuickBird images (B & C) and interpretations of surface feature (D & E), respectively. SRTM data (F) for the west part of the study area showing palaeochannel levees. QuickBird image (G) and interpretations of the surface features (H).
Figure 3.15: (A) SRTM data map of the southern part of the study area showing how Khalid palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) QuickBird image (2006) of the same area to show archaeological sites associated with Khalid palaeochannel. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 3.15: (A) SRTM data map of the southern part of the study area showing how Khalid palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) QuickBird image (2006) of the same area to show archaeological sites associated with Khalid palaeochannel. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 3.17: Topographic cross-sections through palaeochannels, showing the locations of the augured boreholes, radiocarbon samples, and associated archaeological sites. (A) and (B) shows radiocarbon ages of shells from the Khalid Channel (Purattum and Arahtum courses). Figure 3.17: Topographic cross-sections through palaeochannels, showing the locations of the augured boreholes,
Figure 3.17: Topographic cross-sections through palaeochannels, showing the locations of the augured boreholes, radiocarbon samples, and associated archaeological sites. (A) and (B) shows radiocarbon ages of shells from the Khalid Channel (Purattum and Arahtum courses). Figure 3.17: Topographic cross-sections through palaeochannels, showing the locations of the augured boreholes,
Figure 3.18: (A) SRTM data showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain in Qasim area. (B) QuickBird image (2006) showing the Qasim palaeochannel. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 3.18: (A) SRTM data showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain in Qasim area. (B) QuickBird image (2006) showing the Qasim palaeochannel. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 3.19: (A) QuickBird image showing the Qasim palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the Qasim palaeochannel levees and BH27. (D) Field photograph showing the location of BH28. (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH27and BH28 boreholes.
Figure 3.19: (A) QuickBird image showing the Qasim palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the Qasim palaeochannel levees and BH27. (D) Field photograph showing the location of BH28. (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH27and BH28 boreholes.
Figure 3.20: (A) SRTM data of the middle part of the study area showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) Field photograph showing the Haideri irrigation canal. (C) Field photograph showing the Lower Sura /Qasim palaeochannel. Figure 3.20: (A) SRTM data of the middle part of the study area showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively
Figure 3.20: (A) SRTM data of the middle part of the study area showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) Field photograph showing the Haideri irrigation canal. (C) Field photograph showing the Lower Sura /Qasim palaeochannel. Figure 3.20: (A) SRTM data of the middle part of the study area showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively
Figure 3.21: (A) QuickBird image showing the Qasim palaeochannel levees and the Nakhla site. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph of the Qasim palaeochannel levees. (D) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH27 and BH28 boreholes. Figure 3.21: (A) QuickBird image showing the Qasim palaeochannel levees and the Nakhla site. (B) Tracing of surface
Figure 3.21: (A) QuickBird image showing the Qasim palaeochannel levees and the Nakhla site. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph of the Qasim palaeochannel levees. (D) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH27 and BH28 boreholes. Figure 3.21: (A) QuickBird image showing the Qasim palaeochannel levees and the Nakhla site. (B) Tracing of surface
Figure 3.22: (A) QuickBird image showing the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels and how canals can meander over time so that scrollbars are formed. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. igure 3.22: (A) QuickBird image showing the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels and how canals can meander over
Figure 3.22: (A) QuickBird image showing the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels and how canals can meander over time so that scrollbars are formed. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. igure 3.22: (A) QuickBird image showing the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels and how canals can meander over
Figure 3.23: (A) QuickBird image showing the Agaira branch (Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels). (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph location of the BH25 borehole. (D) Field photograph showing the Naail site, the Agaira palaeochannel and the location of the BH26 borehole. (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH25 and BH26 boreholes.
Figure 3.23: (A) QuickBird image showing the Agaira branch (Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels). (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph location of the BH25 borehole. (D) Field photograph showing the Naail site, the Agaira palaeochannel and the location of the BH26 borehole. (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH25 and BH26 boreholes.
Figure 3.24: (A) Quickbird image showing the Jaziya branch one of the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels. (A) Quickbird image showing the Sinin branch one of the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels. (C) Quickbird image showing the Khandug Shapur canal branch on the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels. (D, E, and F) are tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of these images.
Figure 3.24: (A) Quickbird image showing the Jaziya branch one of the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels. (A) Quickbird image showing the Sinin branch one of the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels. (C) Quickbird image showing the Khandug Shapur canal branch on the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels. (D, E, and F) are tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of these images.
Figure 3.25: The Halhul palaeochannel of one of the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels. (A) SRTM, (B) QuickBird image and (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 3.25: The Halhul palaeochannel of one of the Pallukkatu/Kufa palaeochannels. (A) SRTM, (B) QuickBird image and (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 3.26: (A) CORONA image showing the Ciniyah palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. (C) Field photograph showing the locations of BH14 and BH29 (D) Field photograph showing archaeological site (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH22, BH13, and BH15 boreholes.
Figure 3.26: (A) CORONA image showing the Ciniyah palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. (C) Field photograph showing the locations of BH14 and BH29 (D) Field photograph showing archaeological site (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH22, BH13, and BH15 boreholes.
Figure 3.27: (A) QuickBird image showing the Khizail palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the Khizail palaeochannel. (D) Field photograph showing a section inside the Khizail palaeochannel. (E) Field photograph showing sand and shell of the palaeochannel.
Figure 3.27: (A) QuickBird image showing the Khizail palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the Khizail palaeochannel. (D) Field photograph showing a section inside the Khizail palaeochannel. (E) Field photograph showing sand and shell of the palaeochannel.
Figure 3.28: Topographic cross-sections through palaeochannels, showing the locations of the augured boreholes, radiocarbon sample (A, B, and C) show location of radiocarbon shell samples from the Pallukkatu, Khandug Shapur, and Sinin channels (Sura Course).
Figure 3.28: Topographic cross-sections through palaeochannels, showing the locations of the augured boreholes, radiocarbon sample (A, B, and C) show location of radiocarbon shell samples from the Pallukkatu, Khandug Shapur, and Sinin channels (Sura Course).
Figure 3.29: (A) CORONA image showing the Ciniyah palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. (C) Field photograph showing the locations of BH30 and BH29 (D) Field photograph showing the location of BH30. (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH29, BH30, and BH31 boreholes.
Figure 3.29: (A) CORONA image showing the Ciniyah palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. (C) Field photograph showing the locations of BH30 and BH29 (D) Field photograph showing the location of BH30. (E) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH29, BH30, and BH31 boreholes.
Figure 3.30: (A) SRTM data map of south east part of the study area showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) CORONA images (1968) showing the avulsion node of the Ciniyah avulsed channel. (C) QuickBird image (2006) as an example to show the relict meander loops and scars of Ciniyah palaeochannel levees. (D and E) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of the images B and C respectively.
Figure 3.30: (A) SRTM data map of south east part of the study area showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) CORONA images (1968) showing the avulsion node of the Ciniyah avulsed channel. (C) QuickBird image (2006) as an example to show the relict meander loops and scars of Ciniyah palaeochannel levees. (D and E) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of the images B and C respectively.
Figure 3.31: (A) SRTM data map of the Hamzah palaeochannel showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) CORONA images showing the avulsion node of the Hamzah avulsed channel. (C) and (D) QuickBird image showing Hamzah palaeochannel levees. (E, F and G) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of these images respectively.
Figure 3.31: (A) SRTM data map of the Hamzah palaeochannel showing how palaeochannel levees have a relatively high topographic elevation in relation to the surrounding floodplain. (B) CORONA images showing the avulsion node of the Hamzah avulsed channel. (C) and (D) QuickBird image showing Hamzah palaeochannel levees. (E, F and G) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites of these images respectively.
Figure 3.32: (A) QuickBird image showing the Rufaia palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features includin; Palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph of the meander of the Rufai: palaeochannel. (D) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH32 anc BH33 boreholes.
Figure 3.32: (A) QuickBird image showing the Rufaia palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features includin; Palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph of the meander of the Rufai: palaeochannel. (D) Topographic cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH32 anc BH33 boreholes.
Figure 3.33: (A) QuickBird image showing the modern Hilla channel (B) CORONA image showing the modern Hill: channel and levees of the lower Sura palaeochannel (C) and (D) are tracing of A and B respectively .
Figure 3.33: (A) QuickBird image showing the modern Hilla channel (B) CORONA image showing the modern Hill: channel and levees of the lower Sura palaeochannel (C) and (D) are tracing of A and B respectively .
Figure 3.35: Map showing how the main palaeochannels of Najaf area were continued in Ur area
Figure 3.35: Map showing how the main palaeochannels of Najaf area were continued in Ur area
Figure 3.36: (A) QuickBird image showing the Adab palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including Palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph of the meander of the Adab palaeochannel. (D) Field photograph and section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH39 and location of the radiocarbon sample (E) Sketch showing a modern canal was constructed on the Adab palaeochannel and the location of the BH39. been dated from the fourth millennium BC to the first millennium BC. There are no recognisable abandoned channels in the Ur area except the abandonment of the Khalid palaeochannel fron < the south of the site of Khalid to the south of Ur (Fig.3.40), which occurred during the 1° millennium BC, as there are no associated sites from this period, according to Adams (1981).
Figure 3.36: (A) QuickBird image showing the Adab palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including Palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph of the meander of the Adab palaeochannel. (D) Field photograph and section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH39 and location of the radiocarbon sample (E) Sketch showing a modern canal was constructed on the Adab palaeochannel and the location of the BH39. been dated from the fourth millennium BC to the first millennium BC. There are no recognisable abandoned channels in the Ur area except the abandonment of the Khalid palaeochannel fron < the south of the site of Khalid to the south of Ur (Fig.3.40), which occurred during the 1° millennium BC, as there are no associated sites from this period, according to Adams (1981).
Figure 3.37: (A) QuickBird image showing the Adab palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph and section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH41 and location of the radiocarbon samples (D) Field photograph and section through the palaeochannel (E) Sketch showing a modern canal was constructed on the Adab palaeochannel and the location of the BH41.
Figure 3.37: (A) QuickBird image showing the Adab palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph and section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the BH41 and location of the radiocarbon samples (D) Field photograph and section through the palaeochannel (E) Sketch showing a modern canal was constructed on the Adab palaeochannel and the location of the BH41.
Figure 3.39: (A) QuickBird image showing the BH30 close to the Ur palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the auguring process of the BH30 (D) Field photograph showing auger sample in 4.5 m depth of the BH30 (E) Field photograph and section through the quarry where the BH30 dug. (F) Field photograph showing sample taken from the marsh sediments in 0.7m depth of the BH30.
Figure 3.39: (A) QuickBird image showing the BH30 close to the Ur palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the auguring process of the BH30 (D) Field photograph showing auger sample in 4.5 m depth of the BH30 (E) Field photograph and section through the quarry where the BH30 dug. (F) Field photograph showing sample taken from the marsh sediments in 0.7m depth of the BH30.
Figure 3.41: Landsat (2000) showing the identified archaeological sites and palaeochannels in the Marshland area.
Figure 3.41: Landsat (2000) showing the identified archaeological sites and palaeochannels in the Marshland area.
Figure 3.43: The identified archaeological sites and palaeochannels in the Marshland area. The extrapolated eastern continuations of the Girsu, Lagash and Jidr channels are based on the new identification of channel deposits in the boreholes M32, M28 and M35. Note the implications for the presence on a single, continuous “sealand” across this area at the time of channel deposition, as discussed in the text.
Figure 3.43: The identified archaeological sites and palaeochannels in the Marshland area. The extrapolated eastern continuations of the Girsu, Lagash and Jidr channels are based on the new identification of channel deposits in the boreholes M32, M28 and M35. Note the implications for the presence on a single, continuous “sealand” across this area at the time of channel deposition, as discussed in the text.
Figure 3.44: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole M32 on to the Lagash palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole M32 and the location of the radiocarbon sample.
Figure 3.44: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole M32 on to the Lagash palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole M32 and the location of the radiocarbon sample.
Figure 3.45: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole M35 on to the Kura palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole M35 and the location of the radiocarbon samples.
Figure 3.45: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole M35 on to the Kura palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole M35 and the location of the radiocarbon samples.
Figure 3.46: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole M28 on to the Jidr palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. (C) Section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole M28 and the location of the radiocarbon samples.
Figure 3.46: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole M28 on to the Jidr palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. (C) Section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole M28 and the location of the radiocarbon samples.
Figure 3.47: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH32 on to the Zubayr palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole BH32and the location of the radiocarbon sample. (D) Field photograph showing the Zubayr palaeochannel levee.
Figure 3.47: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH32 on to the Zubayr palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole BH32and the location of the radiocarbon sample. (D) Field photograph showing the Zubayr palaeochannel levee.
previous work. this course in this part, because of the high degree of interference amongst the large number of oxbow lakes and levees mentioned (Fig. 4.6). However, its starting point can be located to the north of the Balad mesa, i.e. the location of the avulsion node where the present channe originates (Fig. 4.5). There is no mention of this course in any historical texts and also nc archaeological site has been established in this terrace, either in the present study or in any previous work. Figure 4.1: SRTM map showing Fat’ hah fan.
previous work. this course in this part, because of the high degree of interference amongst the large number of oxbow lakes and levees mentioned (Fig. 4.6). However, its starting point can be located to the north of the Balad mesa, i.e. the location of the avulsion node where the present channe originates (Fig. 4.5). There is no mention of this course in any historical texts and also nc archaeological site has been established in this terrace, either in the present study or in any previous work. Figure 4.1: SRTM map showing Fat’ hah fan.
Figure 4.2: SRTM map showing the Samarra area which is located to the south of the Fat’hah fan and the most important archaeological sites.
Figure 4.2: SRTM map showing the Samarra area which is located to the south of the Fat’hah fan and the most important archaeological sites.
Figure 4.3: Landsat image (2000) showing the Samarra area and the most important archaeological sites.
Figure 4.3: Landsat image (2000) showing the Samarra area and the most important archaeological sites.
Figure 4.4: All the reconstructed Palaeochannels and archaeological sites in the Samarra area in the present study.
Figure 4.4: All the reconstructed Palaeochannels and archaeological sites in the Samarra area in the present study.
Figure 4.6: Intensive oxbow lakes in the Pleistocene floodplain of Samarra area. (A and B) QuickBird images. (C and D) tracing of the oxbow lakes of the A and B images respectively.
Figure 4.6: Intensive oxbow lakes in the Pleistocene floodplain of Samarra area. (A and B) QuickBird images. (C and D) tracing of the oxbow lakes of the A and B images respectively.
Figure 4.7: QuickBird image showing where Nahrawan and Is’haqi canal taking water from Tigris (B) Dujail palaeochannel (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) QuickBird showing Is’haqi canal and Maskan site.
Figure 4.7: QuickBird image showing where Nahrawan and Is’haqi canal taking water from Tigris (B) Dujail palaeochannel (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) QuickBird showing Is’haqi canal and Maskan site.
Figure 4.8: (A) QuickBird image showing Nahrawan and Is’haqi canals in the Samarra area. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) QuickBird images showing Is’haqi canal.
Figure 4.8: (A) QuickBird image showing Nahrawan and Is’haqi canals in the Samarra area. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) QuickBird images showing Is’haqi canal.
Figure 4.9: QuickBird image showing Nahrawan, Qawraj, and Is’haqi canals in the Samarra area.
Figure 4.9: QuickBird image showing Nahrawan, Qawraj, and Is’haqi canals in the Samarra area.
Figure 4.10: (A) CORONA image showing Qawraj canal and the modern Tigris river. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. Figure 4.10: (A) CORONA image showing Qawraj canal and the modern Tigris river. (B) Tracing of surface features
Figure 4.10: (A) CORONA image showing Qawraj canal and the modern Tigris river. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. Figure 4.10: (A) CORONA image showing Qawraj canal and the modern Tigris river. (B) Tracing of surface features
Figure 4.12: SRTM map showing the location of the ancient and the modern courses of the Adhaim river in the Adhaim area.
Figure 4.12: SRTM map showing the location of the ancient and the modern courses of the Adhaim river in the Adhaim area.
Figure 4.13: Landsat image (2000) showing the Adhaim area.
Figure 4.13: Landsat image (2000) showing the Adhaim area.
Figure 4.14: All the identified palaeochannels and archaeological sites in Adhaim area.
Figure 4.14: All the identified palaeochannels and archaeological sites in Adhaim area.
Figure 4.15: The reconstructed palaeochannels and archaeological sites in the avulsion node area in Adhaim area
Figure 4.15: The reconstructed palaeochannels and archaeological sites in the avulsion node area in Adhaim area
Figure 4.16: (A) CORONA image showing the ancient Adhaim channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancier Adhaim and the Batt canal. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. Figure 4.16: (A) CORONA image showing the ancient Adhaim channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient
Figure 4.16: (A) CORONA image showing the ancient Adhaim channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancier Adhaim and the Batt canal. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. Figure 4.16: (A) CORONA image showing the ancient Adhaim channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient
Figure 4.19: QuickBird image showing Batt palaeocanal.
Figure 4.19: QuickBird image showing Batt palaeocanal.
Figure 4.24: QuickBird image showing scars of the ancient course of Diyala river. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. Figure 4.24: QuickBird image showing scars of the ancient course of Diyala river. (B) Tracing of surface feature
Figure 4.24: QuickBird image showing scars of the ancient course of Diyala river. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. Figure 4.24: QuickBird image showing scars of the ancient course of Diyala river. (B) Tracing of surface feature
Figure 4.25: QuickBird image showing scars of the ancient course of Diyala river. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.25: QuickBird image showing scars of the ancient course of Diyala river. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.26: QuickBird image showing scars of the ancient course of Diyala river. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.26: QuickBird image showing scars of the ancient course of Diyala river. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Fig. 4.27: QuickBird image showing scars of palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Fig. 4.27: QuickBird image showing scars of palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.28: QuickBird image showing scars of palaeochannel (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochanne levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.28: QuickBird image showing scars of palaeochannel (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochanne levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.29: SRTM map showing the location of Baghdad area in the present study. Furthermore, archaeologists such as Armstrong (1989), Wilkinson (1990), Adams (1981), Steinkeller (2001), Stone (2003) and Hritz and Wilkinson (2006), have estimated that the ancient Tigris course ran across the centre of the floodplain (from Baghdad to Dalmaj Lake) until the Old Babylonian period, when it avulsed to the northeast, i.e. close to the present-day location of the Tigris. Their suggestion is based upon cuneiform texts that mentioned desertification and silt accumulation in this period, and also because many human settlements were abandoned in this specific period.
Figure 4.29: SRTM map showing the location of Baghdad area in the present study. Furthermore, archaeologists such as Armstrong (1989), Wilkinson (1990), Adams (1981), Steinkeller (2001), Stone (2003) and Hritz and Wilkinson (2006), have estimated that the ancient Tigris course ran across the centre of the floodplain (from Baghdad to Dalmaj Lake) until the Old Babylonian period, when it avulsed to the northeast, i.e. close to the present-day location of the Tigris. Their suggestion is based upon cuneiform texts that mentioned desertification and silt accumulation in this period, and also because many human settlements were abandoned in this specific period.
Figure 4.30: Landsat (2000) showing the location of Baghdad area in the present study.
Figure 4.30: Landsat (2000) showing the location of Baghdad area in the present study.
Figure 4.31: All the identified reconstructed palaeochannels and archaeological sites of Baghdad area in the present study. (the periods of sites are after Adams (1981).
Figure 4.31: All the identified reconstructed palaeochannels and archaeological sites of Baghdad area in the present study. (the periods of sites are after Adams (1981).
Figure 4.32: (A) QuickBird image showing dalmaj course scars. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.32: (A) QuickBird image showing dalmaj course scars. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.33: (A) QuickBird image showing Dalmaj course scars. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.33: (A) QuickBird image showing Dalmaj course scars. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.34: (A) QuickBird image showing dalmaj course scars. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.34: (A) QuickBird image showing dalmaj course scars. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites.
Figure 4.35: (A and B) QuickBird images showing Dalmaj course scars. (B and C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites respectively.
Figure 4.35: (A and B) QuickBird images showing Dalmaj course scars. (B and C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites respectively.
Figure 4.36: Map showing how the modern Tigris is bounded by the relatively high elevated levee (see Fig.4.29 fo location and elevation). This is the modern course of the Tigris (Figs. 4.30 - 4.32), formed when the first course avulsed south of Baghdad. It is widely mentioned in historical texts such as Ibn-Rista (1893) and Ibn- Hawgal (1992) and there are several archaeological sites associated with it, such as Seleucia, Ctesiphon, Baghdad and Numaniyah (Figs. 4.30 - 4.32). There are numerous relict oxbow lakes on both sides of this course until it reaches Kut (Figs. 4.32 & 4.37). Both banks of this course were well irrigated by developed canal networks. The right bank of a canal took water from the Euphrates while the left bank took water from the Nahrawan canal, as the water-level within the Tigris channel is lower than that of the surrounding plain, at least north of Kut. A number of canals were dug on both sides of the first course and presumably the second course channel was started as a canal among these other canals, then becoming the main channel. started as a canal among these other canals, then becoming the main channel.
Figure 4.36: Map showing how the modern Tigris is bounded by the relatively high elevated levee (see Fig.4.29 fo location and elevation). This is the modern course of the Tigris (Figs. 4.30 - 4.32), formed when the first course avulsed south of Baghdad. It is widely mentioned in historical texts such as Ibn-Rista (1893) and Ibn- Hawgal (1992) and there are several archaeological sites associated with it, such as Seleucia, Ctesiphon, Baghdad and Numaniyah (Figs. 4.30 - 4.32). There are numerous relict oxbow lakes on both sides of this course until it reaches Kut (Figs. 4.32 & 4.37). Both banks of this course were well irrigated by developed canal networks. The right bank of a canal took water from the Euphrates while the left bank took water from the Nahrawan canal, as the water-level within the Tigris channel is lower than that of the surrounding plain, at least north of Kut. A number of canals were dug on both sides of the first course and presumably the second course channel was started as a canal among these other canals, then becoming the main channel. started as a canal among these other canals, then becoming the main channel.
Figure 4.37: SRTM map showing the location of Kut area in the present study.
Figure 4.37: SRTM map showing the location of Kut area in the present study.
Figure 4.38: Landsat image (2000) showing the location of Kut area in the present study.
Figure 4.38: Landsat image (2000) showing the location of Kut area in the present study.
Figure 4.40: (A) CORONA image showing the Dijla-Alaoura channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars.
Figure 4.40: (A) CORONA image showing the Dijla-Alaoura channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars.
Figure 4.41: (A and B) Field photograph showing the Dujail palaeochannel levee and the Wasit archaeological site.
Figure 4.41: (A and B) Field photograph showing the Dujail palaeochannel levee and the Wasit archaeological site.
Figure 4.42: (A) QuickBird image showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient Adhaim and the Batt canal. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. Figure 4.42: (A) QuickBird image showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient
Figure 4.42: (A) QuickBird image showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient Adhaim and the Batt canal. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. Figure 4.42: (A) QuickBird image showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient
Figure 4.43: (A) QuickBird image showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient Adhaim and the Batt canal. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. Figure 4.43: (A) QuickBird image showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient
Figure 4.43: (A) QuickBird image showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient Adhaim and the Batt canal. (C) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. Figure 4.43: (A) QuickBird image showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) QuickBird images showing the ancient
Figure 4.44: (A) QuickBird images showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. (C) QuickBird images showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (D) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars.
Figure 4.44: (A) QuickBird images showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars. (C) QuickBird images showing the scars of Dujaila channel. (D) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars.
Figure 4.45: (A) CORONA image showing the Gharraf channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars.
Figure 4.45: (A) CORONA image showing the Gharraf channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees and scars.
Figure 4.46: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH26 on to the Dujaila palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole BH26 and the location of the radiocarbon sample. (D) Field photograph showing the Dujaila palaeochannel levee.
Figure 4.46: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH26 on to the Dujaila palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole BH26 and the location of the radiocarbon sample. (D) Field photograph showing the Dujaila palaeochannel levee.
‘igure 4.47: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH28 on to the Dujla Alora palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of urface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the Jujaila palaeochannel levee (D) Cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole 3H28 and the location of the radiocarbon sample.
‘igure 4.47: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH28 on to the Dujla Alora palaeochannel. (B) Tracing of urface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the Jujaila palaeochannel levee (D) Cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole 3H28 and the location of the radiocarbon sample.
Figure4. 48: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH42 on to the modern Gharraf channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the Gharraf channel levee (D) Field photograph showing auger sediment of the borehole in 4m depth (E) Cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole BH28 and the location of the radiocarbon sample.
Figure4. 48: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH42 on to the modern Gharraf channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing the Gharraf channel levee (D) Field photograph showing auger sediment of the borehole in 4m depth (E) Cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole BH28 and the location of the radiocarbon sample.
Figure 4.49: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH29 close to the modern Gharraf channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing use of the excavator to dig the borehole (D) Field photograph showing cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole BH29 and the location of the radiocarbon sample. (E) Field photograph showing the marsh sediments in 2m depth (F) Sketch showing the excavated hole of the Borehole BH29.
Figure 4.49: (A) QuickBird image showing the borehole BH29 close to the modern Gharraf channel. (B) Tracing of surface features including palaeochannel levees, scars and archaeological sites. (C) Field photograph showing use of the excavator to dig the borehole (D) Field photograph showing cross-section through the palaeochannel, showing the lithologies of the borehole BH29 and the location of the radiocarbon sample. (E) Field photograph showing the marsh sediments in 2m depth (F) Sketch showing the excavated hole of the Borehole BH29.
Figure 5.1: The palaeochannels, lakes, marshes and the northern shoreline of the Gulf during the Mid-Holocene, based on a combination of geological, geomorphological, remote sensing, textual, radiocarbon dating and archaeological approaches.
Figure 5.1: The palaeochannels, lakes, marshes and the northern shoreline of the Gulf during the Mid-Holocene, based on a combination of geological, geomorphological, remote sensing, textual, radiocarbon dating and archaeological approaches.
Figure 5.2: The palaeochannels, lakes, marshes and the northern shoreline of the Gulf during the late Holocene (around Parthian, Sasanian and Islamic periods) based on a combination of geological, geomorphological, remote sensing, textual, radiocarbon dating and archaeological approaches.
Figure 5.2: The palaeochannels, lakes, marshes and the northern shoreline of the Gulf during the late Holocene (around Parthian, Sasanian and Islamic periods) based on a combination of geological, geomorphological, remote sensing, textual, radiocarbon dating and archaeological approaches.
Figure 5.3: Coexistence of the Tigris and the Euphrates during the fourth and third millennium BC.
Figure 5.3: Coexistence of the Tigris and the Euphrates during the fourth and third millennium BC.
Figure 5.5: Topographic profiles (see Fig. 5.3 for location). Section (C-D) showing possibility of irrigation Wilaya from the Dalmaj course. Section (E-F) showing possibility of irrigation Mashkan-Shapir from the Dalmaj course. Section (G-H), (I-J),(K-L) and (M-N) showing the confined and unconfined river meander belt for Tigris and Euphrates.
Figure 5.5: Topographic profiles (see Fig. 5.3 for location). Section (C-D) showing possibility of irrigation Wilaya from the Dalmaj course. Section (E-F) showing possibility of irrigation Mashkan-Shapir from the Dalmaj course. Section (G-H), (I-J),(K-L) and (M-N) showing the confined and unconfined river meander belt for Tigris and Euphrates.
Table 5.1: Sedimentation rate of the presents study.
Table 5.1: Sedimentation rate of the presents study.
Figure 5.8: An example of baguette levee located to the south east of Najaf showing how the relatively high elevated abandoned levee of Khizail palaeochannel which was cut by the modern Shamiyah channel water. (A) SRTM map, (B) CORONA image and (C) Sketch showing the identified feature in the A and B.
Figure 5.8: An example of baguette levee located to the south east of Najaf showing how the relatively high elevated abandoned levee of Khizail palaeochannel which was cut by the modern Shamiyah channel water. (A) SRTM map, (B) CORONA image and (C) Sketch showing the identified feature in the A and B.
Figure 5.10: An example of baguette levee located to the north west of Basra showing how the relatively hig! elevated abandoned levee of the ancient Euphrates which was cut by the modern Euphrates channel water. (A SRTM map, (B) QuickBird image and (C) Sketch showing the identified feature in the A and B.
Figure 5.10: An example of baguette levee located to the north west of Basra showing how the relatively hig! elevated abandoned levee of the ancient Euphrates which was cut by the modern Euphrates channel water. (A SRTM map, (B) QuickBird image and (C) Sketch showing the identified feature in the A and B.
Figure 5.11: An example of baguette levee located to the north west of Kut showing how the relatively high elevated abandoned levee of the Surat Al-Adhim palaeochannel which was cut by the modern Tigris channel water. (A) SRTM map, (B) QuickBird image and (C) Sketch showing the identified feature in the A and B.
Figure 5.11: An example of baguette levee located to the north west of Kut showing how the relatively high elevated abandoned levee of the Surat Al-Adhim palaeochannel which was cut by the modern Tigris channel water. (A) SRTM map, (B) QuickBird image and (C) Sketch showing the identified feature in the A and B.
Figure 5.12: An example of baguette levee located to the east of Nasiriya showing how the relatively high elevated abandoned levee of the Dujaila palaeochannel which was cut by the modern Tigris channel water. (A) SRTM map, (B) QuickBird image and (C) Sketch showing the identified feature in the A and B.
Figure 5.12: An example of baguette levee located to the east of Nasiriya showing how the relatively high elevated abandoned levee of the Dujaila palaeochannel which was cut by the modern Tigris channel water. (A) SRTM map, (B) QuickBird image and (C) Sketch showing the identified feature in the A and B.
These avulsions can be summarized in the following table (Table 5.1) and Figure (Fig. 5.13). It is proposed that these avulsions contributed to the shaping, forming and aggrading of both the ancient and present-day landscapes of the floodplain. Moreover, these avulsions have affected the distribution, flourishing and degradation of human settlements of the southern Mesopotamian civilisation. 5.2.2 Coexistence of the Tigris and the Euphrates
These avulsions can be summarized in the following table (Table 5.1) and Figure (Fig. 5.13). It is proposed that these avulsions contributed to the shaping, forming and aggrading of both the ancient and present-day landscapes of the floodplain. Moreover, these avulsions have affected the distribution, flourishing and degradation of human settlements of the southern Mesopotamian civilisation. 5.2.2 Coexistence of the Tigris and the Euphrates
Figure 5.13: All the identified channel main avulsions in the present study.
Figure 5.13: All the identified channel main avulsions in the present study.
Related topics:
HistoryArchaeologyNear Eastern ArchaeologyEarth SciencesGeologyGeomorphologyNear Eastern StudiesGeoarchaeologyIraqi HistoryMesopotamian Archaeology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved