The last centuries of the 3rd millennium in the Syrian ǦezÄ«ra . .... that the invention of pottery initially made little difference to the Neolithic way of life. Not only .... 1 and neighbouring al-KÅm 2-Caracol, together forming a village of around 3 ha.
ARCHEOLOGIE ET HISTOIRE DE LA SYRIE I
SCHRIFTEN ZUR VORDERASIATISCHEN ARCHÄOLOGIE Herausgegeben von Winfried Orthmann und Jan-Waalke Meyer Band 1,1
2013
Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden
Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie I La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer
édité par Winfried Orthmann / Paolo Matthiae / Michel al-Maqdissi
avec les contributions de Peter M.M.G. Akkermans, Alfonso Archi, Jörg Becker, Dominique Beyer, Felix Blocher, Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum, Annie Caubet, Heike Dohmann-Pfälzner, Jean-Marie Durand, Jacqueline Gachet-Bizollon, Ralph Hempelmann, Horst Klengel, Kai Kohlmeyer, Hartmut Kühne, Marc Lebeau, Dittmar Machule, Jean-Claude Margueron, Stefania Mazzoni, Jan-Waalke Meyer, Mirko Novák, Joan Oates, Dennis Pardee, Frances Pinnock, Alexander Pruß, Lauren Ristvet, Wolfgang Röllig, Elena Rova, Gabriella Scandone-Matthiae, Helga Seeden, Danielle Stordeur, Dietrich Sürenhagen, Harvey Weiss, Dirk Wicke, Marguerite Yon
2013
Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2013 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCentrum AG Printed in Germany ISSN 2196-7199 ISBN 978-3-447-06972-4
Avant-propos
En 1989 parut le volume II du livre « Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie », traitant des périodes de la domination des Achéménides jusqu’aux débuts de l’islam. Il était alors prévu d’entamer dans la foulée le travail pour le volume I présentant une période allant de l’époque du néolithique jusqu’à l’empire néoassyrien. Pour diverses raisons, les préparatifs pour ce livre furent retardés et c’est seulement en 2002 qu’à la demande de la Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de la République Syrienne, le travail reprit. Les collaborateurs pressentis pour les différentes parties se déclarèrent prêts à envoyer leurs textes et illustrations dans un délai raisonnable et au cours de l’année 2003 les premiers manuscrits parvinrent. Malheureusement, il fallut finalement une dizaine d’années pour réunir tous les textes compris dans ce volume. Entretemps, la recherche avait fait des progrès considérables, grâce à une activité intense de fouilles à laquelle participèrent directement un grand nombre de collaborateurs de ce volume. Les auteurs des manuscrits achevés depuis longtemps ont saisi l’opportunité d’actualiser leurs textes au regard de ces recherches récentes et d’intégrer dans leur bibliographie de nouvelles publications. Les éditeurs de ce volume remercient tous les collaborateurs pour leur patience et leur effort d’actualisation. Dans la recherche archéologique en Syrie, plusieurs systèmes chronologiques et désignations de périodes sont pratiqués. Les éditeurs n’ont pas estimé utile de pousser à une unification de la terminologie à l’intérieur de ce volume, celle-ci étant amenée à d’autres modifications dans les prochaines années, en raison d’initiatives telles que notamment ARCANE. Le tableau au page 584 essaie de donner une concordance des différentes terminologies pour l’âge de bronze en Syrie. Paolo Matthiae Winfried Orthmann
Contents Danielle Stordeur: Le Néolithique précéramique en Syrie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter M.M.G. Akkermans: Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic, ca. 6800–5300 BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jörg Becker: Northern Syria in the Ubaid Period, ca. 5300–4200 BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joan Oates: The Proto-Urban (Uruk) Period in Northeast Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dietrich Sürenhagen: Die Uruk-Periode im syrischen Euphrattal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfonso Archi: History of Syria in the Third Millennium: the Written Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Claude Margueron: Le royaume de Mari durant la première moitié du IIIe millénaire : stratigraphie et architecture Elena Rova: The Ninivite 5 Period in Northeast Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marc Lebeau: La Syrie du nord-est à l’époque Jezireh Archaïque III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alexander Pruß: The last centuries of the 3rd millennium in the Syrian Ǧezīra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan-Waalke Meyer, Winfried Orthmann: Die westliche Ǧezīra in der Frühen Bronzezeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan-Waalke Meyer, Ralph Hempelmann: Das dritte Jahrtausend im Gebiet des Mittleren Euphrats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paolo Matthiae: The IIIrd Millennium in North-Western Syria: Stratigraphy and Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frances Pinnock: Sculpture and Minor Arts of the Early Dynastic and Akkade Periods and Their Relation to Mesopotamian Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heike Dohmann-Pfälzner: Siegel des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. in der syrischen Ğezīra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Marie Durand: Histoire du royaume de Mari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Claude Margueron: La Ville III de Mari : la dynastie des Šakanakku et l’époque amorite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lauren Ristvet, Harvey Weiss: The Ḫābūr Region in the Old Babylonian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan-Waalke Meyer: Die Mittlere Bronzezeit am Euphrat und in der westlichen Ǧezīra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 17 33 43 61 75 89 107 119 137 147 165 181
199 215 235 243 257 273
8
Contents
Paolo Matthiae: North-Western Syria in the Old Syrian Period: Stratigraphy and Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marguerite Yon: La Syrie côtière entre le 16e et le 12e siècle av. J.-C. : Stratigraphie et architecture . . . . . . . . . . . Dennis Pardee: Ugaritic Culture and Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horst Klengel: Syria 1350–1200 BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mirko Novák: Upper Mesopotamia in the Mittani Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dittmar Machule, Felix Blocher: The Late Bronze Age in the Middle Euphrates Valley Region: Stratigraphy and Architecture . . Paolo Matthiae: Stone Sculpture of the Second Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helga Seeden: Metal Sculpture of the Second Millennium BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabriella Scandone Matthiae: Egyptian Statuary of the IIIrd and IInd Millennia in Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annie Caubet, Jacqueline Gachet-Bizollon: L’ivoire en Syrie à l’âge du Bronze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominique Beyer: Sceaux et empreintes de sceaux du second millénaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum: The Middle Assyrian Domination of Northeast Syria: The Written Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wolfgang Röllig: History of the Neohittite and the Aramaean States and the Assyrian Conquest . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hartmut Kühne: State and Empire of Assyria in Northeast Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Winfried Orthmann: The Neo-Hittite Period in Northern Syria: Stratigraphy and Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kai Kohlmeyer: The Temple of the Storm-God of Aleppo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Winfried Orthmann: Stone Sculpture of the Iron Age in Northern Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Winfried Orthmann: Assyrian Wall Painting in Northern Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dirk Wicke: Elfenbeinschnitzereien in der Eisenzeit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stefania Mazzoni: Seals and Seal Impressions of the Iron Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
283 309 329 339 345 357 375 395 411 417 433 449 461 473 499 511 525 543 549 571
Table of terminologies in use for the Bronze Age of Syria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 Topographical Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic, ca. 6800–5300 BC
Peter M.M.G. Akkermans
By the beginning of the seventh millennium BC1, Neolithic settlements had become well established in the varied landscape of northern Syria. The sites often differed from each other in terms of their materialculture assemblages at the interregional, or even intraregional, level, but there were also many similarities, and there was always a strong affiliation with what had been before. Conventionally, the first occurrence of ceramics is considered to distinguish the late from the early Neolithic, but it is important for us to realize that the invention of pottery initially made little difference to the Neolithic way of life. Not only was there considerable continuity in the production of lithics, bone tools, stone vessels, and so on, but the manufacture and use of pottery did not follow a simple, unilateral trajectory either: while some communities remained fully aceramic, others used ceramics on a modest scale or adopted pottery at a much later date in its developed rather than its incipient form. Although the transition from the early to the late Neolithic was much less distinct than is often believed, there were also several discernible developments in the late Neolithic era, which lasted some 1500 years, from ca. 6800 to 5300 BC. We have good evidence for a series of major shifts and innovations in this long period, including change in the location and lay-out of settlement; the appearance of new types of architecture; the development of pottery into a mass product; the introduction of seals and sealings; the beginnings of metallurgy; shifts in ritual and burial; and an increase in pastoralism and mobility. The nature and pace of change differed from region to region but, broadly speaking, a very diverse cultural mosaic was in the making in northern Syria that included in each region a few relatively large, permanent settlements containing production, storage, exchange, cult and other facilities, surrounded by many more small and dispersed, often short-lived, villages and hamlets (cf. Akkermans 1993; Akkermans, Schwartz 2003, and references therein). While the Neolithic affiliation of the many small-scale societies of the seventh millennium BC is usually undisputed, it has long been maintained that the subsequent sixth-millennium culture groups such as the Halaf and Samarra should be regarded as “Chalcolithic” in nature, rather than “Neolithic”. The distinction is not merely a matter of semantics but reflects differences in the interpretation and explanation of the archaeological record, with “Chalcolithic” often implying breaks in local sequences and abrupt, usually external, influences, and “Neolithic” standing for continuity and slow, internal change. For example, the 1
All dates used in this contribution are calibrated dates BC. The research for this article was finished in March 2004.
18
Peter M.M.G. Akkermans
Fig. 1. Syria in the late Neolithic, with the location of the main sites mentioned
Halaf has long been seen as intrusive in Syria, in association with hill people descending from the mountains of Anatolia or colonists arriving from the plains of Iraq (Mallowan, Rose 1935; Mallowan 1936; Perkins 1949; Mellaart 1970, 1975). The recent work at sites such as T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ in northcentral Syria has proven this view to be utterly incorrect; both the seventh and sixth millennium communities in Syria and elsewhere should be interpreted as the result of long and local, Neolithic continuities and indigenous change, rather than as the product of sudden innovation or the arrival of new populations (Akkermans 1993).
Settlement and architecture in the seventh millennium BC We know of dozens of seventh-millennium sites in the valleys and plains of northern Syria, and ongoing research brings more to light each year (Fig. 1). Most sites were located along ancient water channels, near springs, or in other favourable parts of the landscape. Some were older foundations – from the eighthmillennium PPNB period or before – which were still occupied, such as for example Būqras and Ḥālūla. Others were newly established. These settlements, whether old or new, varied considerably in size, duration and internal lay-out. There were small, short-lived camps, used intermittently or for special purposes as outlook posts or campsites of small hunting parties, or as temporary stops by pastoralists in the course of their annual treks, or as small factory sites where flint was obtained and worked. The often ephemeral scatters of lithic tools on wadi banks in the Ḫābūr region or at many locations in the desert near al-Kōm
Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic
19
and Palmyra may reflect occupations of this nature (e.g. Akazawa 1978; Cauvin 1981, 1990; Nishiaki 1992). In many places, however, the focus of settlement was on hamlets and small villages with houses solidly built of pisé or mud brick for permanent occupation. Prominent features were relatively large, rectangular houses each composed of a series of rooms that had often been renewed, suggestive of some permanence of occupation over several generations by, perhaps, one family. There were also small, one-roomed structures, with hearths and other domestic installations in the open yards in front of them. In the beginning of the seventh millennium BC, the interiors of the buildings often still carried a white plaster – so typical of the PPNB period before – but this feature largely fell into disuse at the end of the millennium. In the second half of the seventh millennium, people also began to employ circular structures or ‘tholoi’ up to 5–6 m across, as at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ on the Balīḫ, Ḥālūla on the Euphrates and T. al-Karḫ in western Syria.2 By the mid-sixth millennium, such circular buildings were predominant in the Halaf culture over much of northern Syria and Iraq. Most tholoi had only one circular room, but keyhole-shaped buildings consisting of a circular room enlarged by a rectangular antechamber also existed, as at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ ca. 5900 BC. The buildings are usually thought to have had a beehive-shaped superstructure, although other kinds of roofs also occur. The shift from rectangular to round – a fundamental departure from the longlived tradition of rectilinear construction in Syria and elsewhere – has not yet been satisfactorily explained, although a variety of perspectives has been proposed, ranging from a revival of much older building traditions that had still survived in remote hinterlands to adaptations to a degrading natural environment and differences in social structure and community organization (see for example the overviews in Akkermans 1989, p. 59–66; Tsuneki, Miyake 1998, p. 164–176). Some sites contained a handful of buildings in use for only a few generations, as shown by the recent salvage work at Ga‘da al-Mujāra and T. Kosak Šamali (Coqueugniot 1998; Nishiaki et al. 1999), while others revealed lengthy, perhaps unbroken, sequences of occupation over hundreds of years (Būqras, T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ, Ḥālūla, etc.). Settlements were usually small, in the order of 0.5–1 ha, with the number of inhabitants probably restricted to a few dozen. There were also a few sizeable sites such as Būqras in eastern Syria, which in the mid-seventh millennium may have had as many as 180 houses over a 3 ha area inhabited by 700 to1000 people. A weak two-level hierarchy in the organization of settlement seems to occur nearly everywhere, with one or two larger sites – perhaps regional centres – complemented by a number of smaller occupations. Field reconnaissances suggest an increase or renewal of settlement in many parts of Syria in the seventh and sixth millennia. For example, the desert in the heart of Syria was re-occupied after a hiatus of several thousands of years following the Epipalaeolithic period. Many sites were probably little more than temporarily inhabited stations but there were also permanent settlements, such as at the mound of al-Kōm 1 and neighbouring al-Kōm 2-Caracol, together forming a village of around 3 ha. Rectangular buildings with small, cell-like rooms were exposed at al-Kōm 2-Caracol, complemented in the upper levels by structures with a central T-shaped room and roughly symmetrical side wings (Dornemann 1986; Stordeur 2000). Much further to the west, settlement in the Amuq plain – another region virtually devoid of settled populations prior to the late Neolithic – began at sites like T. Ǧudēdah, T. Ḏahab and elsewhere together with the introduction of pottery in the region (Amuq phase A; Braidwood, Braidwood 1960; Yener et al. 2000). In contrast to the earlier PPNB period represented by one or two sites, the Rūǧ basin near Idlib in the late Neolithic period contained some fourteen occupations. This number includes the large site of T. ‘Ain al-Karḫ with its rectangular pisé buildings with many small cubicles often hardly more than one square metre in size that cannot have been used for purposes other than storage (Tsuneki, Miyake 1996; Tsuneki et al. 1999). And while only a handful of early Neolithic sites are known from the Ḫābūr area in 2
Ever since the work at Arpačīya in northern Iraq in the early 1930s, these circular buildings have been referred to as tholoi in the archaeological literature, this on the basis of some broad though misleading parallels in lay-out with Mycenaean grave tombs of much later date. See Mallowan, Rose 1935, p. 25.
20
Peter M.M.G. Akkermans
Fig. 2. Axonometric reconstruction of 7th mill. houses on the SW slope of T. Būqras (after Akkermans et al. 1983)
northeastern Syria, there were some twenty late Neolithic sites, including T. Kaškašok II northwest of the modern town of Ḥasaka, a small, short-lived village less than one hectare occupied by the middle of the seventh millennium BC (Nishiaki 1992, p. 100; Nishiaki 2000, p. 88–91; Matsutani 1991). However, the trend is less dramatic than some researchers seem to assume, particularly given the size of the region under consideration and the length of the period. Not all sites should be assumed to be contemporary. It is all too easy to conclude that more sites reflects more sedentary occupation or an increase in population, but the number of sites in use at any given moment was probably very low. For reasons not yet fully understood, the intensity of settlement remains far below expectation in some areas. One example is the vast Euphrates basin thousands of square kilometers in size, where only a dozen sites of the seventh to early sixth millennium have been discovered, with most of these settlements located between the Syro-Turkish border and the artificial Lake Assad. The continuation of occupation from the early (aceramic) Neolithic into the late (pottery) Neolithic has been documented at large settlement mounds such as Abū Hurēra, Ḥālūla and T. Būqras. Occupation at the 12 ha site of Abū Hurēra contracted to half if not less of its earlier extent, and was mainly characterized by flimsy traces of rectangular mud-brick houses and numerous shallow pits sometimes provided with hearths (Moore 1975; Moore et al. 2000). In contrast, Ḥālūla yielded rectangular houses divided into small compartments provided with ovens and hearths, as well as impressive stone walls up to 1.20 m in width that must have enclosed at least part of the settlement, although the perimeter is still unknown (Molist 1996, 1998). T. Būqras revealed a long and apparently uninterrupted sequence extending from an early, aceramic, Neolithic phase (the lower levels 11–8) to a late Neolithic phase (the upper levels 7–1) with pottery resembling the Proto-Hassunan assemblages at Iraqi sites like Umm Dabāġīyah. Much of the architecture of the uppermost levels 3–1 was visible at the surface of the site and could be mapped extensively. The site plan suggests considerable regularity, planning and order in the pattern of house construction, with many buildings consisting of three or four long rectangular rooms with a tiny square room at the back (Fig. 2). A few buildings were distinguished by the figures of ostriches or cranes painted in red ochre on the white wall plaster or by a stylized human face in relief on the wall (P.A. Akkermans et al. 1983). Sites of the early seventh millennium BC commonly occur in the basin of the Balīḫ, where the characteristic early pottery dated to the transition from the aceramic to the ceramic Neolithic has been found in
Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic
21
Fig. 3. 3D reconstruction of the Burnt Village at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ, ca. 6000 BC
excavation at T. Aswad, T. Damišlīya and T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ, and on the surface of at least six other mounds (Akkermans 1993; Nieuwenhuyse 2000a). The recent work at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ has begun to explore the relevant levels (dated at about 6800–6500 BC) on an extensive scale. The site revealed a number of rectangular houses built of pisé or mud brick that were were divided into small, often white-washed, compartments sometimes provided with hearths and other installations. Large, circular kilns up to two metres in diameter stood in the open yards outside the houses. One enigmatic building consisted of two long but narrow rooms (each approximately 7×1 m), with a large white-plastered basin in one room and in the other room the skeletons of three young children lying together on the floor. Another large, rectangular structure was built atop a mud-brick platform and comprised many tiny rooms no more than 1.7–3.5 m² large, arranged in three rows oriented north-south. Access to the rooms was through low, curved portholes of very restricted size (hardly 50 cm across). One room had a circular fireplace, another one had a bin in one of its corners, and in a third cubicle a large pottery vessel had been sunk into the floor. This form of rectangular architecture remained in use for many centuries, although other, circular, types of buildings began to appear at the end of the seventh millennium as well. One example is the level 6 settlement or so-called ‘Burnt Village’ at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ, a well-established settlement about one hectare in size which ended in a conflagration around 6000 BC. It was built of large and closely spaced rectangular buildings surrounded by many small round structures (Fig. 3). The rectangular buildings with their fifteen or more cubicles, each only between three and five square metres, have been interpreted as granaries and storehouses, while the often white-plastered circular houses up to four metres in diameter, with hearths against the inner wall, seem to have served primarily for living and reception. Rich inventories were recovered from the (burnt) buildings, including pottery, stone vessels, flint and obsidian implements, ground-
22
Peter M.M.G. Akkermans
stone tools, figurines, personal ornaments, and hundreds of clay sealings with stamp-seal impressions (Akkermans, Verhoeven 1995; Akkermans 1996).
Northern Syria in the sixth millennium BC Northern Syria in the sixth millennium seems to have had a particularly flourishing culture. This is first indicated by the appearance of a distinctive painted pottery known as Halaf ware, named after the site of T. Ḥalaf on the Syro-Turkish border and accounting for as much as 80% of the ceramic assemblages at the sites of this period. The new pottery was characterized by excellent technological properties, complex vessel shapes, and extensive painted decoration in a dazzling variety of geometric and naturalistic designs, including the renowned bucranium – the bull’s head with horns (Fig. 4). Although the overall stylistic unity was considerable – the reason for the long-held belief that Halaf was one of the most homogeneous assemblages in the prehistoric Near East (LeBlanc, Watson 1973) – we should not loose sight of the growing amount of evidence for regional and temporal diversity. The detailed sequence at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ has shown that the beginning of the Halaf was neither a sudden event nor the result of the arrival of people from elsewhere, as long assumed, but the outcome of a lengthy, continuous process of local culture change in the plains of the Ǧazīra in northeastern Syria and adjacent Iraq (Akkermans 1993). The process also involved other cultural traditions, including the Samarra, found in northeastern Syria at sites like Baġūz, Bouēd II and Šāġir Bāzār (Mallowan 1936; Braidwood et al. 1944; Du Mesnil du Buisson 1948; Suleiman, Nieuwenhuyse 2002; Nieuwenhuyse 2000b). Elaborately decorated Samarran pottery also occurred in small quantities at T. Sabī Abyaḍ around 6000 BC, where it was a transitional pottery type, intermediate between the lower Neolithic strata and the upper Halaf levels (Le Mière, Nieuwenhuyse 1996). Many of the Halaf material-culture traits other than ceramics would not be out of place in other cultural settings or ages. For example, the basic unit of settlement, found in massive numbers at Halaf-period sites, was the circular building (tholos) with or without a rectangular antechamber, but this building tradition has a long history reaching back to the late seventh millennium BC. Despite the immense popularity of round houses, Halaf people still made occasional use of rectangular buildings. An example is T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ in the early Halaf period, ca. 5900 BC, when a sizeable building with a niched façade stood prominently at the summit of the mound, with a large stone-walled terrace next to it and many circular structures low on the slope (Akkermans 1993, 1996). The Halaf culture – ca. 5900–5300 BC – centered in the plains of the Ǧazīra east of the Euphrates but settlement also extended into western Syria up to the Mediterranean littoral and the southeastern Anatolian piedmont. Although there seem to have been a few substantial sites perhaps covering as much as 10 ha or more, such as Nisibin and T. Kurdu, most Halaf sites were very small, in the order of 0.1–1 ha, with shallow deposits less than one or two metres deep, used by a few dozen inhabitants on a seasonal basis or, if more permanently, for one or two generations at the most, as at T. Damišlīya and Ḫirbet aš-Šanaf on the Balīḫ or at Argūna near Homs in western Syria, ca. 5600–5500 BC (Marfoe et al. 1981; Akkermans 1988; Akkermans, Wittmann 1993). During this period the Euphrates basin had only about ten sites, including Ḥālūla and Šams ad-Dīn (Molist 1998; Azoury et al. 1980), each with circular buildings on stone foundations. In other regions there were considerably more sites than before, as in the neighbouring Balīḫ valley, where we find almost forty settlements. One example is Ḫirbet aš-Šanaf, barely a quarter of a hectare in extent and characterized by dozens of circular buildings up to 5 m in diameter. Most settlements were located close to water channels in the fertile rain-fed areas, but there were also isolated foundations in marginal regions previously avoided or little used by Neolithic people, such as at Umm Qusēr along the middle Ḫābūr river (Hole, Johnson 1986–87; Tsuneki, Miyake 1998). However, we should not simply conclude that more sites
Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic
Fig. 4. Painted Halaf pottery from T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ (nos. 1. 2. 4–6. 8–10. 14. 15), T. Damišlīya (no. 3), Šams ad-Dīn (no. 7. 11. 13. 16. 19. 20) and Ḫirbat aš-Šanaf (no.12. 17. 18. 21) (Akkermans, Schwartz 2003).
23
24
Peter M.M.G. Akkermans
Fig. 5. Late Neolithic pots and bowls from T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ, ca. 6600–6400 bc. These ceramics are among the earliest pottery known from Northern Syria. The tallest vessel on the left measures 37.7 cm.
reflect more sedentary occupation or an increase in population; some settlements, for example, began early in the Halaf sequence and had long sequences, while others were used at a much later time and manifested short-lived occupations.
Subsistence The late Neolithic communities grew emmer wheat, barley, lentils, field peas, chick peas, bitter vetch and flax, in dry-farmed fields or on seasonally inundated land beside the rivers and wadis, close to the settlements. There is no proof for any form of deliberate irrigation in Syria at this time. Agriculture included only limited parts of the potentially arable land, since most late Neolithic communities were very small and dispersed, housing a few dozen people at the most. It is widely agreed that cultivation took place in winter, with planting between October and December and harvesting between April and June (Redman 1978, p. 22). Cereals were staples, eaten either as roasted or boiled grains or used in the making of bread, biscuits, porridge and gruel. Cereals may also have been used for brewing beers (Katz, Voigt 1986). The introduction of pottery must have changed the diet, since meat and vegetable foods could be thoroughly cooked and softened in ceramic vessels. The change led to a sharp reduction in wear of people’s teeth, as shown by burials at Abū Hurēra (Molleson 2000, p. 309). In addition to the domesticates, people also gathered pistachios, almonds, prunes, raspberries and figs, and probably many other wild plants for food, fuel, or medicinal purposes. Sheep and goats were the main domesticated animals, accompanied to a much lesser extent by cattle and pigs. Dogs were also kept. Herding was fully integrated into the late Neolithic subsistence economy, in
Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic
25
order to ensure a regular supply of meat and blood for food, hides for clothes or tent furnishings, and skeletal parts for tool production. Animals may also have been exploited for their ‘secondary products’ such as milk and wool, although this is still a matter of much controversy (Sherratt 1981, 1983). Animals may also have been kept for the expression of wealth and the creation of social distinctions, or as a means of storing surpluses on the hoof to counteract the omnipresent risks of crop failure or other catastrophes (Dahl, Hjort 1976, p. 137). Cattle may also have been used for traction (plowing) and transport, or in symbolic and ritual contexts, as suggested by their common occurrence on painted pottery. In contrast to the larger, permanent villages where the use of domestic resources was predominant, the diet at many of the small, short-lived occupations was frequently supplemented with game like the onager and gazelle and, to a lesser extent, the aurochs, roe, fallow deer, red deer, brown bear, wild pig or, whenever the opportunity arose, smaller animals such as the hare, fox, hyena, wild cat, turtle, fish, and birds like the stork, goose, duck and crow. Wild animals comprise up to 40 to 60% of the faunal sample at the small mid-sixth millennium sites of Ḫirbet aš-Šanaf, Šams ad-Dīn, Umm Qusēr and Bouēd II (see the surveys in Akkermans 1993; Zeder 1995). Farming undoubtedly required many hours of hard labour each day, particularly during the harvest when work had to be completed within a short period of time to avoid considerable crop losses. The constant clearing and maintenance of the gardens and the daily herding requirements of the village’s flocks, may have led to long-term claims on place and to the creation of ancestral, kin-bound lands, passed on from generation to generation – a process probably further enhanced by a steady rebuilding of houses in the same locales and the burying of the dead within the settlements. However, we also see another, different, trend in which mobility was crucial. There were countless small, short-lived occupations in use either seasonally or for one or two generations at the most, where small groups of people pursued a varied and flexible subsistence pattern. Although the picture is still far from clear, animal husbandry and seasonal herding over varying distances, in association with intensive hunting and gathering, may have been a prime subsistence activity at many of these small sites in the late Neolithic (Köhler-Rollefson 1992). In this respect, attachment to place and land may have been primarily regional in scale, not local.
Innovation and material culture Although some sites were aceramic, the presence of pottery in a wide variety of shapes and fabric is a main characteristic of the late Neolithic. Ceramics were a major novelty which came to affect all domains of society, from the preparation and consumption of food to the organization of storage and the expression of local identities and allegiances. Pottery was introduced in northern Syria at about 6800 BC or shortly afterwards, in the form of relatively coarse hole-mouth pots and tall straight-walled vessels, often with handles (Fig. 5). In its initial stage, ceramic manufacture proceeded along domestic lines and was predominantly directed towards ‘home-use’ consumption or irregular household exchange, with vessels produced on a seasonal or ad hoc replacement basis. Slightly later, after ca. 6200 BC, there was not only a much greater abundance of ceramics but also a significantly greater variety of fabric, shape, size, and decoration, while by the early sixth millennium BC, with the introduction of the Samarra and Halaf styles, there was a growing need for decorated ceramics, seen in the ever-increasing proportion of elaborately painted vessels. There were significant changes in the pottery craft at this time, involving a new technology and investments in manufacturing facilities such as two-chambered updraft kilns, as at Yarim Tepe II in Iraq (Munchaev, Merpert 1971, p. 30). Production increasingly developed into a mature and specialized economic activity, which included the circulation by exchange of ceramics over sometimes hundreds of kilometres. For example, Levantine Dark-Faced Burnished Ware travelled as far as T. Būqras in eastern Syria and the Proto-Hassunan sites in Iraq. In a reverse direction, painted pottery in Halaf style was imported into northwestern Syria and Cilicia, while Mesopotamian Samarran ceramics reached as far west
26
Peter M.M.G. Akkermans
Fig. 6. Clay sealing and associated stone bowl. T. Sabī Abyaḍ, ca. 6000 BC (after Duistermaat 1996)
as T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ in Syria and Sakçagözü in southeastern Anatolia (Le Mière, Picon 1987; Akkermans 1993). Not only were vessels traded in their own right, but they may also have served as receptacles for other exchanged commodities or as goods functioning in social or symbolic frameworks. Other crafts included the working of flint and obsidian and other stone for tool production in many different shapes and sizes. The raw material was either indigenous to many parts of Syria and available for easy exploitation, or arrived via the exchange networks from regions far away, such as, for example, Anatolian obsidian. Basalt slabs, mortars and palettes were used for the grinding of cereals and other food products and pigments. There were also stone vessels, as well as maceheads, axes, adzes and chisels, often produced with a high degree of craftsmanship. When compared with its PPNB predecessor, the lithic industry of the seventh and sixth millennia, primarily based on flake production, is often described as ‘banal’ or ‘impoverished’ but the new trends probably reflect changing lifestyles rather than a decline in technology. The flakes may represent basic implements easily made and easily discarded, used for activities where a particular tool shape had little meaning (Banning 1998, p. 203). Projectile points – so characteristic of the early Neolithic – sharply decline in frequency or even disappear completely at many sites, perhaps due to the replacement of the bow and arrow by the slingshot (sun-dried sling bolts are abundantly found at late Neolithic sites). New types of arrowheads made their entrance, such as the short-tanged Haparsa Points and the small transverse arrowheads that appeared shortly afterwards, suggestive of changes in bow technology. Copperworking began in this period, although the quantities of copper used were very modest. Metal was neither vital for subsistence nor yet fully valued as a prestige commodity (Moorey 1994, p. 256). The worked objects include only small personal ornaments such as beads and rings, as at seventh-millennium T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ or, much further south, at T. Ramād near Damascus. Worked copper or pieces of green malachite, one of its ores perhaps used predominantly for pigment production, are also known from the sites of the sixth-millennium Halaf culture, such as T. Kurdu in the Amuq and Šāġir Bāzār in the Ḫābūr triangle. A remarkable innovation in the second half of the seventh millennium was the development of a widely accepted, standardized system of administration in the form of seals and sealings. The stamp seals with their engraved surfaces were meant to be impressed on lumps of wet clay or plaster placed on the fastening
Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic
27
of baskets, ceramics, stone vessels and other containers, or covering their opening entirely (Fig. 6). In this manner seals helped to define individual property and secure the containers against unauthorized opening – a very useful tool in the organization and control of storage. Sealed products were not available to all members of the community at random, but only to those people who, by the act of sealing, had marked their ownership (Akkermans, Duistermaat 1996). The administrative devices, transcending recordkeeping by memory, have been found in usually small numbers at many late Neolithic sites throughout Syria, such as Ra’s Šamra, T. al-Karḫ, Ḥālūla, al-Kōm 2-Caracol, and T. Būqras. Their distribution is not limited to the large settlements but also includes hamlets such as Bouēd II and Umm Qusēr on the Ḫābūr. Over 300 clay sealings have been found in storehouses of the Burnt Village at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ, ca. 6000 BC. Originally the material culture must also have included many items made of wood, cloth, hides and other materials that now have perished. For example, the Burnt Village at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ, ca. 6000 BC, has provided evidence for the presence of hundreds of baskets in the form of impressions on the reverse of clay sealings. Būqras has yielded the remains of woven mats covering the white-plastered floors in the houses. Textile production is indicated by the large numbers of clay spindle whorls and loom-weights at many sites, and by the figurines bearing markings suggestive of clothing and ornament.
Ritual and igurines The set of late Neolithic ritual paraphernalia known to us is limited. One reason for this is the possible use of objects made of perishable materials that have not been preserved, another is that ritual may also have involved many items which seem purely utilitarian at first sight but which may have been interpreted quite differently in the ceremonial sphere; the meaning of objects is not constant across contexts. Pottery, for example, primarily served for the preparation and consumption of food and drink, but was also commonly placed in graves as a gift to the dead or used in foundation offerings associated with the construction of buildings, as at mid-sixth millennium Ḫirbet aš-Šanaf. However, it may also be the case that ritual in the late Neolithic took place within the private, intimate confines of individual households, rather than at the public level so characteristic of the early Neolithic, or, alternatively, that it was increasingly concentrated at a few specific sites that served as the focal points of ceremony over many generations (Akkermans, Schwartz 2003). Figurines in stone, bone and clay have been found in small quantities at many late Neolithic settlements. They are both anthropomorphic, mainly of female gender with often exaggerated hips and voluminous breasts, and zoomorphic. The figurines come in several types. Some are fairly naturalistic and wear girdles and necklaces, as at Bûqras in its upper levels, whereas others are much more stylized. T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ at about 6000 BC has yielded dozens of small female figurines of sun-dried clay, the heads of which were apparently intentionally broken off and either discarded or stored elsewhere. By the beginning of the sixth millennium, figurines were more elaborate and often decoratively painted. T. Kaškašok in northeast Syria produced many painted and well-fired terracotta statuettes, all in the form of seated, naked women supporting their breasts. There were also animal figurines, often crudely finished in the form of bulls, although other species are also represented. An extraordinary find at T. Būqras were three gypsum vessels in the form of a recumbent bull, hare and hedgehog, all manufactured with great skill in a naturalistic style. The ritual implication of human and animal fgurines is usually taken for granted, although their interpretation hardly goes beyond superficial notions of female fertility and reproduction and ‘mother goddesses’. The figurines were often found in and around the houses within settlements, suggesting that their use was open to all members of the community. Ritual knowledge was apparently not limited to specialists – sorcerers, medicine-men, shamans – but shared by many, perhaps in specific contexts such as in initiation ceremonies or rituals associated with birth and death. Usually small and tangible, the figurines were meant
28
Peter M.M.G. Akkermans
to be taken in the hand and perhaps passed on. They conveyed their messages, whatever these were, in a simplified, miniaturized form (cf. Bailey 1996, p. 291. 295).
The treatment of the dead Burials provide perhaps the most accessible evidence for ritual in the late Neolithic. Mortuary practices in this period were widely diverse and ranged from simple pit inhumations and pot interments to skull sepultures and cremations. Even within each category of burial, there was substantial variation in grave construction, position and orientation of the body, and in the number and type of funerary gifts (Akkermans 1989; Campbell 1992; Merpert, Munchaev 1993). Primary inhumations in simple pits were most common, usually with a single individual lying on one side in a crouching position. Sometimes the dead were wrapped in mats, and ochre or charcoal was scattered over the body. The graves known to us within the settlements usually contain children, less frequently adults who were apparently taken elsewhere to what may have been formal burial grounds. Infants were sometimes also buried in pots, as at seventh-millennium T. al-Karḫ, Ḥālūla, and T. Ḫazna II. Pottery and ornaments accompanied most graves (occasionally stone vessels, axes, and other items occur as well). There is little or no evidence for differences in status and social ranking on the basis of grave inventories, but age differentiation is suggested, since older adults were usually provided with more and varied gifts than younger people. The practice of secondary burial – so typical of the early Neolithic – was still in vogue, although in a modest manner. T. Būqras yielded evidence for the removal of the cranium from the body, in the form of two isolated and artificially deformed human skulls found in one house in the upper level III (P.A. Akkermans et al.1983, p. 344, 365–70). Skull interments in shallow pits, sometimes accompanied by funerary gifts, also occur at several sixth-millennium Halaf sites in the adjacent Iraqi Ǧazīrah, such as Arpačīya, Yarim Tepe II and T. Azzo I (cf. Akkermans 1989 and references therein). In the sixth milllennium, several new burial types occurred, including elaborate shaft graves with the dead in a low, vaulted chamber, as at Halafian Yarim Tepe I in Iraq, and cremations of children and adults, as at T. Kurdu in western Syria, Šāġir Bāzār in northeastern Syria and Yarim Tepe II in Iraq. In several instances the burning of the corpse and the subsequent interment of the burnt skeletal remains seems to have been associated with an intentional breakage of pottery vessels.
Mobility and authority Although we have made great progress in our understanding of the many different communities in northern Syria in the seventh and sixth millennia BC, there is still much to be learnt. One key research issue is the nature of community organization and the role of mobility therein. Scattered over the landscape were a number of sizeable settlement mounds with often monumental visibility, long sequences, complex histories, and permanency of settlement, as well as many more (very) small occupations, inhabited by small groups for shorter or longer time spans. Settlements were not built to last forever; sites were abandoned everywhere, some for good, others for dozens or hundreds of years. Although it is not always easy to interpret occupation sequences, only very few sites seem to have been occupied for the whole length of the late Neolithic period. Pressure on land must have been low, in view of the existence of only a limited number of settlements in any region at any single moment. The availability of space would have allowed communities to move, either wholesale or in part, and to re-establish themselves elsewhere. Such a mobility may often have been related to subsistence strategies and changes in the availability and quality of local resources, but it may also have been inspired by many ad hoc reasons, including diseases, vermin infesta-
Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic
29
tions, and everyday social tensions and disputes. In this respect, the steady movement of people must have contributed to the growth of a range of social networks of varying intensity and to the establishment of often temporary and fluctuating groupings and alliances. Another intriguing issue is whether socio-political complexity and indigenous elites developed in this long period or not. Similarities in pottery styles and architecture over regions sometimes larger than modern states, as for example in the case of the sixth-millennium Halaf culture, have been taken as evidence for the existence of complex chiefdoms. By its size and inventory, the large rectangular building at late Halaf Arpačīya in Iraq has been interpreted as a chiefly residence, and the dimensions and lay-out of some of the round buildings at the site are also sometimes said to have some significance in this respect (e.g. Mallowan, Rose 1935, p.16–17; LeBlanc, Watson 1973; Redman 1978, p. 199. 206). The large number and quality of stamp seals and sealings found in the late Neolithic settlements not only reflect an impressive level of craft specialization, but are often also assumed to be linked with elites restricting access to goods for their own social and economic advantage (e.g. Ferioli, Fiandra 1983; Zettler 1987; Rothman, Blackman 1990). However, the evidence for any form of hierarchical social segmentation, to a degree that would leave firm traces in the archaeological record, is equivocal at best. The argument for elite residences, differentiated wealth distribution, unequal burial treatment or other forms of social difference is still based on minimal and unpersuasive data, or, stated differently: it is often founded on mere assumptions rather than solid proof. The perspective favoured here is that authority in the late Neolithic communities was neither institutionalized nor hierarchical; rather, it was temporary and in the hands of individuals – elders, family heads, etc. – who shifted routinely from the specific tasks of leaders to the ordinary domestic work of commoners as daily circumstances changed. There was no need for formal leadership in the many small and dispersed hamlets and villages, often used for a short period of time by a handful of households only. Any relations of dominance were handled situational and face-to-face, instead of in the form of a centralized village authority. Was a central authority perhaps present at another, regional, level, rather than at the level of the individual site? It is tempting to attribute such a regional political or economic importance to the handful of large and long-lived sites in each region (T. al-Karḫ, T. Sabī Abyaḍ, Ḥālūla, T. Būqras, etc.), that may sometimes have grown as large as 10–15 ha by the end of the late Neolithic period, assumedly housing many hundreds or perhaps even thousands of people. However, it is important to realize that site size is not necessarily the same as settlement size, let alone population size. Sites were not always inhabited in their entirety or continuously but often reflected a small, shifting occupation from one part of the site to another, such as for example at T. Ṣabī Abyaḍ in the seventh millennium BC. Large sites were not necessarily organized differently from small ones; in many respects, they may simply have been extended, aggregated versions of the many small villages, rather than prehistoric ‘urban centres’ with all their usual connotations (Akkermans 1993, p. 199; Nieuwenhuyse 2000b, p. 183; Hole 2000, p. 206–207). In this perspective, the lack of consistent signs of social ranking within the settlements, such as significant differences in house size or inventories, comes as no surprise.
Bibliography Akazawa T. 1978: Prehistoric Occurrences and Chronology in Palmyra Basin, Syria, in: K. Hanihara , Y. Sakaguchi (eds.), Paleolithic Site of Douara Cave and Paleogeography of Palmyra Basin in Syria, Tokyo, pp. 201–220.
Akkermans P.A. et al. 1983: Bouqras Revisited: Preliminary Report on a Project in Eastern Syria, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49, pp. 335–372. Akkermans P.M.M.G. 1988: The Soundings at Tell Damishliyya, in: M. van Loon (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman, Istanbul/Leiden, pp. 19–67.
30
Peter M.M.G. Akkermans
Akkermans P.M.M.G. 1989: Halaf Mortuary Practices: A Survey, in: O. Haex, H. Curvers, P. Akkermans (eds.), To the Euphrates and Beyond, Rotterdam, pp. 75–88. Akkermans P.M.M.G. 1993: Villages in the Steppe – Later Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria, Ann Arbor 1993. Akkermans P.M.M.G., Duistermaat K. 1996: Of Storage and Nomads – The Sealings from Late Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria, Paléorient 22/2, p. 17–44. Akkermans P.M.M.G., Schwartz G.M. 2003: The Archaeology of Syria – From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC), Cambridge. Akkermans P.M.M.G., Verhoeven M. 1995: An Image of Complexity – The Burnt Village at Late Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria, AJA 99 (1995), pp. 5–32. Akkermans P.M.M.G., Wittmann B. 1993: Khirbet eshShenef 1991. Eine späthalafzeitliche Siedlung im Balikhtal, Nordsyrien, MDOG 125, pp. 143–166. Akkermans P.M.M.G. (ed.) 1989: Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad – Prehistoric Investigations in the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria, (BAR IntSer. 468), Oxford. Akkermans P.M.M.G. (ed.) 1996: Tell Sabi Abyad – The Late Neolithic Settlement, Leiden/Istanbul. Azoury I. et al. 1980: A Stone Age Village on the Euphrates, Berytus 28, pp. 87–143. Bailey D. 1996: The Interpretation of Figurines: The Emergence of Illusion and New Ways of Seeing, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6, pp. 291–295. Banning E.B. 1998: The Neolithic Period – Triumphs of Architecture, Agriculture and Art, NEA 61, pp. 188– 237. Braidwood R.J., Braidwood L.S. 1960: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch (OIP 61), Chicago. Braidwood R.J., Braidwood L.S., Tulane E., Perkins A.L. 1944: New Chalcolithic Material of Samarran Type and Its Implications, JNES 3, pp. 47–260. Campbell S. 1992: Culture, Chronology and Change in the Later Neolithic of North Mesopotamia, Edinburgh (unpublished Ph.D thesis). Cauvin J. 1981: L’occupation néolithique de la région d’El Kowm: résultats 1978–1979, in: J. Cauvin, P. Sanlaville (eds.), Préhistoire du Levant, Paris, pp. 471–483. Cauvin J. 1990: Nomadisme néolithique en zone aride: l’oasis d’El Kowm (Syrie), in: P. Matthiae, M. van Loon, H. Weiss (eds.), Resurrecting the Past – A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni, Istanbul/Leiden, pp. 41–47. Coqueugniot E. 1998: Dja’de el Mughara (Moyen-Euphrate), un village néolithique dans son environnement naturel à la veille de la domestication, in: M. Fortin,
O. Aurenche (eds.), Espace naturel, espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10e-2e millénaires av. J-C.), Lyon, pp. 109–114. Dahl G., Hjort A. 1976: Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy, Stockholm. Dornemann R.H. 1986: A Neolithic Village at Tell el Kowm in the Syrian Desert (SAOC 43), Chicago 1986. Duistermaat K. 1996: The Seals and Sealings, in: Akkermans 1996, pp. 339–401. Du Mesnil du Buisson 1948: Baghouz, l’ancienne Corsote – Le tell archaique et la nécropole de l’age du bronze, Leiden. Ferioli P., Fiandra E. 1983: Clay Sealings from Arslantepe VI A: Administration and Bureaucracy, Origini 12, pp. 455–509. Hole F. 2000: Is Size Important? Function and Hierarchy in Neolithic Settlements, in: I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, identity, and Differentiation, New York, pp. 191–209. Hole F., Johnson G.A. 1986–87: Umm Qseir on the Khabur: Preliminary Report on the 1986 Excavation, AASyr 36-37, pp. 172–220. Katz S.H., Voigt M.M. 1986: Bread and Beer: the Early Use of Cereals in the Human Diet, Expedition 28, pp. 23–34. Köhler-Rollefson I. 1992: A Model for the Development of Nomadic Pastoralism on the Transjordanian Plateau, in: O. Bar-Yosef, A. Khazanov (eds.), Pastoralism in the Levant, Madison, pp. 11–19. LeBlanc S.A., Watson P.J. 1973: A Comparative Statistical Analysis of Painted Pottery from Seven Halafian Sites, Paléorient 1, pp.117–133. Le Mière M., Nieuwenhuyse O. 1996: The Prehistoric Pottery, in: Akkermans 1996, pp. 119–284. Le Mière M., Picon M. 1987: Productions locales et circulation des céramiques au Vième millénaire, au ProcheOrient, Paléorient 13, p.137–151. Mallowan M.E.L. 1936: The Excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar and an Archaeological Survey of the Habur Region 1934–35, Iraq 3, pp. 1–87. Mallowan M.E.L., Rose J.C. 1935: Excavations at Tell Arpachiyah, 1933, Iraq 2, pp. 1–178. Marfoe L. et al. 1981: Arjoune 1978: Preliminary Investigations of a Prehistoric Site in the Homs Basin, Levant 13, pp. 1–27. Matsutani T. (ed.) 1991: Tell Kaskashok – The Excavations at Tell No. II, Tokyo. Mellaart J. 1970: The Earliest Settlements in Western Asia from the Ninth to the End of the Fifth Millennium B.C., Cambridge Ancient History² I (1970), p. 248–303.
Northern Syria in the Late Neolithic
Mellaart J. 1975: The Neolithic of the Near East, London. Merpert N.Y., Munchaev R.M. 1993: Burial Practices of the Halaf Culture, in: N. Yoffee, J. Clark (eds.), Early Stages in the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization – Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq, Tucson, p. 207–223. Molist M. 1998: Espace collectif et espace domestique dans le Néolitique des IXème et VIIIème millénaires B.P. au nord de la Syrie: apports du site de Tell Halula (Vallée de l’Euphrate)”, in: M. Fortin, O. Aurenche (eds.), Espace naturel, espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10e-2e millénaires av. J-C.), Lyon, pp. 115–130. Molist M. (ed.) 1996: Tell Halula (Siria) - Un yacimiento Neolítico del valle medio del Éufrates, campanas de 1991 y 1992, Madrid. Molleson T. 2000: The People of Abu Hureyra, in: A. Moore, G. Hillman, A. Legge, Village on the Euphrates – From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra, Oxford, pp. 301–324. Moore A.M.T. 1975: The Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria: A Preliminary Report, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41, pp. 50–77. Moore A.M.T., Hillman G.C., Legge A.J. 2000: Village on the Euphrates – From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra, Oxford. Moorey P.R.S. 1994: Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries – The Archaeological Evidence, Oxford.. Munchaev R., Merpert N. 1971: The Archaeological Research in the Sinjar Valley (1971), Sumer 27, pp. 23–32. Nieuwenhuyse O. 2000a: Early Pottery: The Ceramics from Level 1, in: M. Verhoeven, P. Akkermans (eds.), Tell Sabi II. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement, Istanbul/Leiden, p. 123–135. Nieuwenhuyse O. 2000b: Halaf Settlement in the Khabur Headwaters, in: B. Lyonnet (ed.), Prospection Archéologique du Haut-Khabur Occidental (Syrie du N.E.)(BAH 155), Beyrouth, p. 151–260. Nishiaki Y. 1992: Preliminary Results of the Prehistoric Survey in the Khabur Basin, Syria: 1990–91 Seasons, Paléorient 18, p. 97–102. Nishiaki Y. 1999: Tell Kosak Shamali: Preliminary Report of the Excavations (1994-1997), in: G. del Olmo Lete, J.-L. Montero Fenollós (eds.), Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates – The Tishrin Dam Area, Barcelona, pp. 71–82. Nishiaki Y. 2000: Palaeolithic and Neolithic Stone Industries from the Khabur Basin, Northeast Syria, in:
31
B. Lyonnet (ed.), Prospection Archéologique du HautKhabur Occidental (Syrie du N.E.) (BAH 155), Beyrouth, pp. 77–124. Perkins A.L. 1949: The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia, Chicago. Redman C.L. 1978: The Rise of Civilization – From Early Farmers to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East, San Francisco. Rothman M.S., Blackman M.J. 1990: Monitoring Administrative Spheres of Action in Late Prehistoric Northern Mesopotamia with the Aid of Chemical Characterization (INAA) of Sealing Clays, in: N.F. Miller (ed.), Economy and Settlement in the Near East: Analyses of Ancient Sites and Materials, MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement to vol. 7, pp. 19–45. Sherratt A. 1981: Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution, in: I. Hodder, G. Isaac, N. Hammond (eds.), Patterns of the Past, Cambridge, pp. 261–305. Sherratt A. 1983: The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World, World Archaeology 15, pp. 90–103. Stordeur D. 2000: El Kowm 2. Une île dans le desert, Paris. Suleiman A., Nieuwenhuyse O. (eds.) 2002: Tell Boueid II – A Late Neolithic Village on the Middle Khabur (Syria), Turnhout. Tsuneki A., Miyake Y. 1996: The Earliest Pottery Sequence of the Levant: New Data from Tell el-Kerkh 2, Northern Syria, Paléorient 22, pp.109–123. Tsuneki A., Miyake Y. (eds.) 1998: Excavations at Tell Umm Qseir in Middle Khabur Valley, North Syria – Report of the 1996 Season, Tsukuba. Tsuneki A. et al. 1999: Third Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Tell el-Kerkh (1999), Northwestern Syria, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 20, pp. 1–32. Yener K.A., Edens C., Harrison T.P., Verstraete J., Wilkinson T.J. 2000: The Amuq Valley Regional Project 1995-1998, AJA 104, pp.163–220. Zeder M. 1995: The Archaeobiology of the Khabur Basin, Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 29, p. 21–32. Zettler R.L. 1987: Sealings as Artifacts of Institutional Administration in Ancient Mesopotamia, JCS 39, pp. 197–240.
Table of terminologies in use for the Bronze Age of Syria
Approximate Dates BC
Historical Terminology for Mesopotamia
Historical Terminology for Syria
Bronze Age Terminology for Syria
Jezirah Terminology
LC / EB I
EJ 0
4000 Late Uruk Jamdat Nasr 2900
EB II Early Dynastic I
EJ 1
2700
EB III (Early Dynastic II)
Early Syrian 1
EJ 2
2600 Early Dynastic IIIa
EB IVa
EJ 3a
2500 Early Dynastic IIIb
Early Syrian 2 (‘Mature’)
EJ 3b
2350 Akkadian post-Akkadian 2100 Neosumerian / Ur III 2000
EB IVb
EJ 4
Early Syrian 3 (‘Late’) EJ 5 Old Syrian 1
MB I OJ 1
Old Babylonian 1800
Old Syrian 2
MB II
Mittani
LB I
1560 1525 1350
OJ 2 OJ 3
Kassite / Mittani / Middle Assyrian
MJ 1 LB II MJ 2
1200
List of Abbreviations AAA
Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology (Liverpool) AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research AASyr Annales archéologiques arabes syriennes. AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AJA American Journal of Archaeology AnSt Anatolian Studies APA Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AoF Altorientalische Forschungen ArchAnz Archäologischer Anzeiger ARES Archivi Reali di Ebla - Studi AUWE Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte BagF Baghdader Forschungen BagM Baghdader Mitteilungen BAH Bibliothèque archéologique et historique. BAR British Archaeological Reports BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BATSH BBVO Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient BCSMS Bulletin of the (Canadian) Society for Mesopotamian Studies BiMes Bibliotheca Mesopotamica CDOG Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft CRAI Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres CRRA Comptes rendus de la Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale DamM Damaszener Mitteilungen FAOS Freiburger Altorientalische Studien HSAO Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient ICAANE International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East IstF Istanbuler Forschungen
IstM JCS JdI
Istanbuler Mitteilungen Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft NEA Near Eastern Archaeology OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, OIP Oriental Institute Publications OrAnt Oriens Antiquus RIME The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin, Padova. SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization SBA Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde SMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Roma. SUN Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens SVA Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie TMO Collection travaux de la Maison de l‘Orient UF Ugarit-Forschungen VicOr Vicino Oriente. Annuario del Dipartimento di Scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dell’antichità, sezione Vicino Oriente VFMOS Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie
Topographical Index N.B.: The designation ‘Tall/Tell’ and the Arabic article ‘al’ usually have been omitted from the placenames. The transcription of Arabic names follows the usage of the “Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients”. ‘Abāda: 40 Abarsal: 75, 81, 82, 133, 147, 149, 162 ‘Abd: 139, 169, 173, 175, 275, 276 ‘Abr: 34, 35, 37, 38, 62 Abr 3: 11 Abū Ḥamad: 147, 160 Abū Ḥassan: 238 Abū Huǧaira: 129 Abū Huraira: 10, 11, 20, 24 Abū Šaḫāt: 148, 149 Abū Ṣalābiḫ: 77 Açana: 62, 309, 433 Acemhöyük: 435, 441 Adab: 77, 84 Adanni: 80 Admannu: 451 Afis: 462, 573, 574, 576, 580 Aǧāǧa: 451, 479, 483, 484 Agagališ: 77, 79 Ägypten: 552 Aḥmar: 62, 139, 166, 167, 173, 175, 176, 195, 275, 360, 462, 480, 488, 494, 499, 512, 574, 576 ‘Aid: 262 ‘Ailūn: 47, 347 ‘Ain al-Karḫ: 19 ‘Ain Dārā: 499, 500, 502, 507, 516, 518, 523, 525–527, 572 Akšak: 83, 84 Aktaş Harabe: 62 Alaca Hüyük: 518 Alalaḫ: 274, 277, 281, 285–287, 289, 290, 296, 298, 299, 302, 309, 329, 332, 348, 350, 375, 379, 380, 382, 385–387, 389, 391, 420, 422, 433, 434, 435, 437, 438, 442, 507, 515, 516, 523, 571, 572, 580 Alalaḫu: 77 Alašiya: 354 Aleppo: 237, 240, 241, 274, 281, 285, 299, 300, 302, 309, 357, 375, 383, 385, 386, 391, 434, 435, 437, 438, 461, 465, 470, 499, 500, 507, 511, 523, 525, 527 ‘Alī: 451 Alişar: 351, 435 al-Kōm: 62 Alšu: 348
Amad(u): 77 Amarna: 139, 167, 173, 175, 339, 340 Amasakku: 347 Amedi: 464, 466 Amida: 462 Ammon: 470 ‘Āmūdā: 451 Amurru: 310, 340, 341, 349, 438, 454, 461 Ana: 463 Anaiat aš-Šarqi: 52 Anat: 463 Andarig: 241, 242, 266 Appu: 312 Apum: 265, 268, 269, 271 ‘Aqab: 39 Arab al-Mulk: 313, 320 Aram: 467 Arbela: 450 ‘Arbīd: 107, 116, 122, 139, 144, 262, 265, 267 Ardata: 310 Argūna: 22 Aribu’a: 464 Armānum: 83, 86 Arpačīya: 19, 28, 29, 44 Arpad: 462, 467, 470, 471, 561, 565 ‘Arqa: 310, 313, 461 Arrapḫa: 237, 348, 354, 457 Arslan Tash: 492, 537–541, 548, 557, 559, 561, 562 Arslantepe: 61, 62, 167, 259, 417, 500 Arwad: 456, 465, 467 ‘Ašāra: 91, 433, 437, 484 ‘Ašarna: 80, 287 Aškelon: 399 Ašlakkâ: 241, 242 Ašnakkum: 241 Aššukanni: 475 Aššur: 237, 339, 435, 449, 451–454, 457, 462, 475, 477, 490 Aštata: 453, 461 Aswad: 10, 12, 21 Atallig: 312 Atāreb: 195, 205 ‘Atīǧ: 111–113, 122, 131 ‘Atīq: 62 Avaris: 382
Topographical Index
’Awšar: 465 Azallu: 464 ‘Azāz: 464 Azira: 341 Azu: 288, 339, 358, 361 Azzo: 28 Baaz Ǧabb‘adīn: 10 Babylon: 241, 242, 253, 256, 281, 348, 452 Babylonie: 243 Baġūz: 22, 89, 94 Banāt: 139, 167, 169, 170, 173, 175–177, 195, 210 Barga’u: 77 Barrī: 86, 107, 116, 139, 144, 262, 265, 268, 346, 347, 451, 476, 484 Baṣīru: 348, 351, 359 Bāzi: 195, 348, 351, 357, 359, 361, 362, 364, 366–368, 370 Bāz Musiān: 451 Bdēri: 112, 122, 126, 129, 139, 352, 451, 479 Beidar: 47, 56, 76, 82, 107, 110, 112, 120–123, 126–129, 131, 132, 141, 148, 149, 152, 162, 215, 224–227, 230, 262, 263, 268, 352, 354 Beirut: 413 Beneš: 195 Beşar: 81 Bethšan: 434 Beth Šan: 438 Bezāri: 55, 56 Bi‘a: 80, 141, 147, 149–152, 154, 155, 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167, 175, 176, 273–275, 277, 279–281, 347, 434, 436 Billā: 451 Binaš: 195 Biqa’: 340 Birecik: 63, 166, 175 Biroutī: 312 Bīt Adini: 464, 467, 483 Bīt Agusi: 465, 470 Bīt Baḫiani: 480, 483 Bīt Baḫiāni: 466 Bīt Rehob: 465 Bīt Zamāni: 466, 483 Bleibis: 62–66 Boġar: 148, 149 Boğazköy: 309, 339 Bouēd: 22, 25, 27, 49 Brāk: 33, 34, 44, 45, 47–56, 61, 62, 70, 71, 75, 107, 108, 110, 112, 114–116, 120, 122, 123, 126, 128, 132, 139, 147, 151, 152, 162, 200, 202, 203, 205, 209, 210, 211, 215, 216, 218, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 230, 237, 262, 263, 265, 268, 346, 347, 348, 352, 353, 354, 355, 418, 420, 421, 422, 426, 428, 451 Būqras: 12, 18–20, 25, 27–29
587
Burmarina: 359 Buzuran: 441 Byblos: 190, 199, 200, 383, 389, 396–400, 402–404, 411, 413–415, 420, 434, 436, 456, 461, 465, 470 Coba Höyük: 47 Čoġa Miš: 69 Cudeyde: 62 Cyprus: 331, 354, 419, 421, 425, 426, 434, 511, 574 Ḏahab: 19 Daḫlīz: 148, 149, 162 Damascus: 237, 341, 391, 462, 463, 465–467, 470, 471, 553, 564 Damdamusa: 464 Damišlīya: 12, 21, 22 Dan: 420 Darib: 77 Daruk: 313 Deinit: 574 Delos: 400, 404, 429 Dēr Ḫabī‘a: 288 Deve Hüyük: 573, 580 Dheina: 62 Dībān: 62 Diyarbakır: 349, 462 Domuztepe: 519 Drehem: 212 Dub: 77 Dūderīya: 10 Dunanab(u): 77 Dunnu-ša-Uzībi: 452 Dūra Europos: 89, 93 Dūr-Aššur-kettī-lēšer: 479 Dūr-Katlimmu: 339, 346, 347, 434, 452, 454, 475, 476, 477, 480, 484, 485, 487, 489, 490, 494, 548, 576 Dūr-Kurigalzu: 455 Dūr-Šarrukīn: 490, 562 Ebla: 75, 76, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 98, 120, 121, 133, 144, 151, 155, 165, 173, 181–196, 199, 200, 202, 203–209, 211–213, 215, 235, 268–270, 277, 281, 283–296, 298–303, 329, 375–386, 389, 391, 411–414, 418, 434, 435, 437, 442, 511, 513 Edom: 470 Egypt: 452, 465 Ekallâtum: 238, 242, 361 Ekalte: 287, 339, 341, 358, 361, 366, 453 Eluḫat: 347 Eluhut: 242 Emar: 139, 167, 169, 173, 273–277, 280, 331, 339, 341, 351, 355, 357–362, 365, 366, 368, 371, 372, 420–423, 426–428, 434, 438, 439, 442, 443, 454, 455, 461, 517, 550, 571, 572
588
Topographical Index
Enkomi: 421, 422 Ergani-Maden: 121 Ešnunna: 77, 237, 240, 241, 242, 256, 277 Faǧami: 54 Faḫarīya: 346, 351, 355, 420, 421, 428, 452, 462, 475, 476, 479 Faq‘ūs: 357, 359 Farfara: 262, 268, 269 Feres aš-Šarqi: 116 Fray: 169, 173, 357, 358–360, 368, 452 Freje: 383 Fuḫḫār: 62 Ǧabal ‘Arūda: 64, 66 Ǧabb‘adīn: 10 Ǧabbul: 387, 389 Ǧablē: 310, 312, 314, 316 Gabr Ab: 62 Ga‘da al-Mujāra: 11, 19 Ǧairūd: 10 Ǧārāde: 10 Gasur: 77 Ǧebel ‘Arūda: 54, 62, 64, 65, 66, 71 Ǧebelet al-Baiḍa: 161, 162, 202, 205, 206 Gelidonya: 396, 419 Ǧerablūs: 339, 461 Ǧerāblūs Taḥtāni: 62, 66, 139, 165, 167, 169, 173, 175, 176 Ǧerf al-Aḥmar: 10, 11 Ǧernīya: 175 Gezer: 291, 412, 422 Gibala: 312 Ǧindīris: 288 Giriciano: 451, 452, 456, 457 Girnavaz: 262, 346, 347 Glea: 148 Göltepe: 121 Gordion: 562, 564, 566 Grai Reš: 47 Gre Virike: 166, 167, 170 Gubla: 86, 411 Ǧudaida: 19, 111, 122, 183, 210, 399, 401, 402 Gurgum: 462, 463–467, 470, 471 Guzana: 462, 463, 466, 480–485, 494, 501, 525, 535, 560 Habūba: 54 Ḥabūba Kabīra: 62, 64–66, 68, 70, 71, 91, 139, 167, 169, 175, 212, 215, 275, 279 Hacınebi Tepe: 61, 62, 66, 69, 71 Ḫadatu: 539, 559 Ḫaddu: 82, 83 Ḥadīdī: 62, 139, 165, 167, 169, 173, 175, 275, 276, 280, 288, 339, 358, 361, 368, 371, 372 Ḥaǧǧ: 62, 70 Haǧib: 54
Ḫalab: 80, 341, 461, 499, 511 Ḫalabitu: 83 Ḥalabīya: 83, 89 Ḥalaf: 22, 33, 37, 462, 463, 480, 482, 494, 501, 534–536, 563, 564, 566, 481 Ḫalam: 77 Ḥalāwa: 139, 152, 165, 167, 169, 173, 175, 177, 205, 206, 273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 353 Ḫalman: 465 Hālūla: 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27, 28, 29 Ḥama: 33, 62, 79, 183, 191, 285, 381, 383, 462, 499, 500, 502, 506, 509, 525, 560, 563, 565, 574, 575, 580 Hamadu: 80 Ḫamat: 462–467, 470, 471 Ḫamazi: 82 Ḥamīdī: 86 Ḥamīdīya: 265, 346, 350, 351, 353, 355, 452, 476 Ḫamīs: 167, 173, 275, 279, 280 Ḥammām eṭ-Ṭurkmān: 33, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 47, 48, 61, 62, 126, 128, 141, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 159, 160, 267, 273, 275, 276, 280, 281, 350 Ḥamūkār: 37, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 61, 62, 71, 107, 110, 116, 122, 126, 139, 141, 212, 262, 263 Ḫana: 274, 456, 463 Ḫanigalbat: 341, 342, 345, 347, 349, 453, 454, 463, 474, 475, 476, 479, 483 Ḫān Šeḫūn: 287 Hanū: 268 Ḫanzīr: 148, 149 Ḫarab Sayyār: 139, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 157, 159, 162 Ḫarbe: 339, 347, 350, 452, 476 Harīrī: 120, 199, 257, 433 Ḫarran: 77, 79, 347, 349, 453, 576 Hasanlu: 562, 566 Ḥassaka: 345, 346 Hassek Höyük: 62, 65, 66 Ḫaššu: 375 Ḫaššum: 77 Ḫatarikka: 462, 467, 470 Hatti: 452, 461, 464 Ḫatti: 341 Ḫattuša: 287, 309, 339, 341, 351, 389, 438, 454, 505, 511, 512, 518, 525 Hauran: 341 Hawā: 62, 267 Hayaz Höyük: 62 Ḫazāzu: 464, 467 Ḫazna: 28, 109, 111, 112, 113, 122, 129 Ḫazna, T.: 47 Hazor: 332 Ḫazrak: 467
Topographical Index
Hierapolis: 302 Ḫilakku: 462, 465 Ḫirbat ad-Dīnīya: 452 Ḫirbet aš-Šanaf: 22, 25, 27 Hirîtum: 242 Hît: 241 Ḫizzīn: 413, 414 Ḥomṣ: 341, 414, 580 Ḫorsabad: 546, 548, 562 Ḫuēra: 75, 82, 110, 123, 126, 128, 129, 132, 133, 139, 147–153, 155–162, 170, 171, 173, 196, 200, 201, 210, 215, 222–224, 227, 230, 268, 339, 347, 353, 451, 476, 477, 479 Ḥumai˚a: 62 Ḫurrā: 347 Hušlâ: 241 Ḫuzirīna: 464, 561 Iarmuti: 84 Ibal: 83 Ilân-ṣûrâ: 241 Ilwi’um: 82 Imamkulu: 512 Imar: 77, 79, 80, 81, 237 Incirlik: 62 Irad: 79 Iris: 313, 320, 326 Iritum: 77, 79 Irqata: 310, 313, 461, 465 Irride: 453 Irrite: 347, 349 Isin: 283 Israel: 465 Išuwa: 348 Jerusalem: 334 Jilib el ‘Abud: 52 Juda: 470 Kabir: 139, 165 Kabīr: 170, 177, 273, 275, 280 Kaḫat: 86, 238, 240, 346, 347, 350, 451, 476, 484 Kakkaban: 86 Kalḫu: 464, 490, 561 Kāmid el-Lōz: 339, 399, 404, 419–422, 461 Kaneš: 385, 434, 435 Karahöyük: 435 Karatepe: 500 Karatut Mevkii: 62, 69 Karḫ: 11, 12, 19, 27, 28, 29 Karkamiš: 62, 63, 77, 81, 147, 165, 166, 175, 183, 274, 275, 285, 287–290, 302, 310, 339–342, 347, 349, 351, 355, 357, 359, 361, 362, 375, 378, 380, 383, 386, 391, 414, 435, 438, 453, 461–466, 468, 470, 471, 499, 500, 502, 503, 505, 506, 508, 509, 516, 519, 522, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 533, 561, 564, 572, 573
589
Kār-Šulmānuašared: 465, 467, 488, 539, 559, 576 Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta: 339, 451, 455 Kaškašok: 20, 27, 34, 37, 39, 49, 52, 53, 56, 111–114 Kazal: 288 Kazane Hüyük: 147 Kazel: 309, 313, 314, 316, 320, 321, 322, 325, 326, 342, 420, 461, 572, 573 Kenk Boğazı: 465 Kerma: 111, 112, 113 Kirmizi Ok Tarlası: 62 Kiš: 76, 81, 83, 84, 120 Kiswah: 415 Kizzuwatna: 340, 345 Klavdia: 434 Knēdiǧ: 109, 112, 113, 576, 580 Knossos: 382 Kōm: 10, 13, 18, 19, 27 Komeçlı: 62 Kosak Šamali: 19, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 165 Kreta: 563 Kulišḫinaš: 451 Kültepe: 285, 418, 434, 435, 441 Kumidi: 339, 342, 404, 404 Kummuḫ: 462, 464–468, 470, 471 Kunulua: 462, 464,499 Kuran: 44 Kurban Höyük: 62, 69, 167, 177, 273, 276 Kurdâ: 241 Kurdu: 22, 26, 35, 38 Kuşaklı: 351 Lagaš: 83 Laḫiš: 420 Larsa: 241, 242, 256, 283 (L)arugadu: 80 Leilan: 351 Leilān: 33, 44, 49, 83, 86, 108, 110, 113–115, 122, 123, 126, 128, 129, 131, 133, 139, 144, 147, 152, 154, 183, 215–218, 226, 229, 237, 257, 259–263, 265–268, 274, 277, 279, 281, 433, 434, 437, 442 Lidar Höyük: 62, 276, 441 Lilabšnum: 86 Lu‘aš: 467, 565 Luban: 80 Mabtūḥ al-Ġarbi: 122, 123, 148, 149 Mabtūḥ al-Šarqi: 122, 123 Magdala: 492 Maġer: 148 Mahadū: 311, 420 Mahrūm: 148, 149 Malabīya: 122, 126, 129, 130, 131 Malatya: 461, 466, 467 Malgûm: 242 Malḥat eḍ-Ḍēru: 148, 149
590
Topographical Index
Mansuate: 467 Maraş: 463, 471 Mardīḫ: 181, 191, 199, 287, 434, 511, 580 Mari: 75, 76, 79, 81–86, 89, 91–93, 95–100, 102, 103–105, 110, 113, 120, 129, 133, 141, 144, 165, 190, 199–202, 205, 207, 209, 210, 212, 215, 235–238, 240, 242–244, 247, 250, 253, 256, 257, 262, 265, 267, 274, 277, 279, 281, 283, 285, 298, 299, 329, 332, 418, 433, 435–437, 441, 442, 456, 210 Marqasi: 463, 471 Masaiḫ: 487, 548 Masin: 287 Maskana: 275, 339, 434 Mašnaqa: 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 47, 49–52, 55, 56, 113 Masos: 562 Mastuma: 574, 575, 580 Masuwari: 462, 463, 481, 499, 500, 512, 530 Megiddo: 420, 422, 517 Melid: 461, 463, 464, 466–468, 470 Meliddu: 462 Memphis: 190 Merǧ Ḫamis: 580 Meskene: 461, 517 Metjāḥa: 148, 149 Mīnā: 576, 577 Minet al-Baiḍa: 310, 311, 314, 316, 321, 322, 324, 326, 331, 420, 423, 441, 443 Mišlân: 238 Mišrifa: 339, 434 Mittani: 453, 475 Moab: 470 Moḥamed Arab: 97 Moḥammad Diyāb: 139, 144, 262, 267, 268, 279, 352, 354 Mōzān: 77, 83, 86, 107, 111, 112, 114, 122, 123, 126, 128, 131, 133, 141, 147, 215, 218–222, 224–227, 229, 257, 262, 265, 267, 268, 274, 347, 353, 354 Mu’azzar: 148, 149 Muhammad: 347 Muḥammad ‘Arab: 62 Mukiš: 86, 309 Mulku: 313 Munbāqa: 84, 139, 169, 172, 173, 175, 177, 276, 279, 287, 339, 358–362, 364–372 Munbātih: 12 Muqayyar: 562 Murēbit: 10 Murēbiṭ: 10, 11, 62 Murmuriga: 340 Muṣur: 354 Mutkinu: 456 Nabada: 76, 77, 82, 120, 121, 129, 133, 224
Nabula: 347 Nagar: 75, 76, 77, 81–83, 86, 120, 122, 128, 132, 133, 162, 200, 221, 237, 259, 348, 350, 353 Nahur: 241 Naïri: 466 Nasibīna: 464 Nebi Mend: 339, 414 Neirab: 412, 576, 580 Nenaš: 79 Nija: 461 Nimrud: 464, 540, 543, 555, 556–559, 561–566 Ninive: 62, 464, 562 Ninua: 450, 490 Nippur: 86 Nisibin: 22 Niya: 77, 340 Noršuntepe: 45 Nuḫašše: 340, 341, 461 Nusaybin: 464 Nustell: 49, 52 Nuzi: 348, 350, 351, 355, 438 Palmyra: 19, 29, 343, 463 Paqiraḫupūna: 467 Patina: 464, 465, 466 Phoenicia: 574 Pir Hüssein: 86, 347 Pitru: 456, 465 Qabra: 237 Qadeš: 287, 310, 339, 340, 391, 414, 415, 419 Qal‘at al-Šerqat: 339 Qal‘at ar-Russ: 312, 322 Qal’at Faqrā: 404 Qamišlije: 35 Qannās: 62, 64, 65, 66, 139, 169 Qarāmil: 10 Qara Qūzāq: 139, 147, 153, 166, 167, 169, 170, 173, 175, 177, 275, 279 Qarāya: 52, 53, 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 91 Qarqar: 465 Qarqūr: 194 Qāṣila: 422 Qatāra: 452 Qaṭna: 79, 83, 237, 241, 242, 274, 277, 281, 285, 287–289, 291, 296–298, 302, 339, 340, 375, 385, 386, 391, 412–415, 418–420, 434–436, 516 Qatni: 480, 484 Qaṭṭarâ: 241 Qdēr: 13 Qiṭār: 275, 359–362, 371, 372 Qu’e: 462, 465, 467, 470 Qumluk: 62 Qūsāq Šamāli: 62, 69 Rad Šaqrah: 112
Topographical Index
Ramād: 12, 26 Ramādi: 62, 63 Ramādī: 91 Ramoth Gilead: 465 Rāpiqu: 463 Raqā’i: 111, 112, 113, 122, 126, 131, 152, 153 Raqqa: 165, 357 Rā’s al-‘Ain: 262, 263 Raṣappa: 494 Ra’s Bassīt: 310, 314, 316, 320, 322, 326 Ra’s Ibn Ḥāni: 312, 314, 316, 318, 320–322, 325, 326, 329, 336, 339, 420, 422, 427 Ra’s Šamra: 12, 33, 27, 183, 310, 314, 315, 316, 322, 324, 325, 329, 330, 333, 420, 433, 461, 577 Rawḍa: 194, 273 Razamâ: 241, 242 Rifa’at: 462, 467, 561, 565 Rimāḥ: 267, 452, 485, 487 Rumeila: 175 Saba‘a: 487 Ṣabī Abyaḍ: 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 339, 452, 457, 476, 477, 479 Šadikanni: 456, 479, 480, 484 Şadı Tepe: 62, 66, 165 Safinat Nūḥ: 287 Safīra: 387, 389 Saggar: 82 Saggâratum: 238, 240 Šāġir Bāzār: 22, 26, 28, 47, 82, 107, 112, 113, 114, 122, 131, 237, 257, 262, 263–265, 267, 268, 352, 434 Sakçagözü: 26, 505, 506, 533, 534, 563, 566 Sakka: 298 Sam’al: 380, 462, 465–467, 470, 471, 499, 500, 503–507, 509, 526, 529–531, 533, 534, 560 Samaria: 467, 470, 471, 562 Samos: 563 Šams ad-Dīn: 22, 25 Samsat: 86 Samsat Höyük: 62, 69 Šamseddīn: 175 Sapuna: 390 Sarafand: 339, 562 Sarepta: 339, 562 Ṣauwān: 35 Savi Höyük: 62 Savur: 347 Šēḫ Ḥamad: 339, 347, 434, 452, 475, 479, 485, 548, 561, 576, 580 Šēḫ Ḥassan: 10, 11, 52, 53, 54, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 Šeḫna: 86, 122, 133, 183, 257, 265, 351, 434, 435 Selankahīya: 139, 167, 169, 173, 175, 177, 202, 203, 210, 275
591
Šelgiya: 44 Seqar Fawqāni: 268 Şerağa Höyük: 62 Sfīre: 470 Siānū: 313 Šibanibe: 451 Sidon: 456, 461, 464 Sigan: 351 Siǧr: 94 Sijannu: 461 Sikani: 462 Simirra: 288, 471 Sinaru: 310 Sippar: 84, 437, 442 Šitamrat: 465 Siyannu: 309, 310, 313, 465 Šiyūḫ Fawqāni: 62, 139, 165, 166, 167, 169, 173, 175, 359, 360 Šiyūḫ Taḥtāni: 139, 167, 175, 275 Söğüt Tarlası: 62 Šubat Enlil: 434, 435 Šubat-Enlil: 237, 238, 240–242, 257, 265, 266, 277, 351 Šuduḫu: 347 Suhû: 454 Suḫu: 463, 487 Sūkās: 313, 320, 322, 325, 326, 339, 404, 461 Suksi: 313 Šuksi: 339, 461 Sultantepe: 464, 561, 566 Sumur: 309, 310, 313, 342, 461, 471 Ṣuprum: 238 Sur: 287 Šūru: 347 Susa: 64, 71, 72 Sweyhat: 139, 167, 169, 173, 174–177, 275 Tabal: 462 Ṭābān: 257, 263, 347, 354, 451, 479 Tabbat al-Hammam: 314 Ṭabēte: 257, 347, 479, 480, 484 Tabqa: 165 Tadmor: 343, 463 Tādum: 86, 351 Taftanaz: 378 Taidu: 346, 347, 350, 351, 353, 355, 451, 453, 476 Talhawum: 82 Tannīra: 62, 66 Tarḫuntašša: 461 Taribu: 195 Tarsus: 580 Tawi: 167, 175 Taya: 259 Tayinat: 462, 500, 503, 505, 508, 499 Tayyānah: 62
592
Topographical Index
Ṭayyiba: 10 Tepecik: 62 Tepe Gawra: 38, 43–45, 47, 52, 56, 62 Terqa: 83, 86, 91, 98, 141, 190, 238, 240, 279, 348, 433, 437, 442, 453, 463 Thèbes: 442 Til-Abnu: 360, 464 Til Barsib: 209, 462, 463, 465, 480–483, 488, 493, 494, 499, 500, 502, 512, 530, 537, 539, 541, 543, 545–548, 559, 560, 566 Tilmen Hüyük: 296, 298, 302, 388, 389, 434, 515 Titriş Hüyük: 147 Tıladır Tepe: 62 Tuba: 79 Tuēni: 312 Tulūl al-‘Aqar: 339, 451 Tunip: 77, 80, 287, 391, 461 Ṭūqān: 285, 287–290, 298, 302 Tušḫan: 347, 464 Tuttul: 76, 80, 81, 83, 86, 147, 149, 196, 238, 240, 274–278, 280, 283, 299, 347, 375, 434, 436 Tutub: 277 Tyre: 461, 464, 470 Üçtepe: 346 Uduḫudu: 79 Ugarit: 183, 288, 309–311, 313–325, 329–332, 334– 336, 339–342, 348, 354, 375, 385, 387–391, 396, 398, 400, 402, 403, 404, 412, 414, 415, 419, 420–429, 433–435, 438, 441–443, 452, 461, 511, 550, 553, 571, 572 Ullaza: 312 Uluburun: 396, 419, 429 Umm Agrēbe: 477 Umm al-Marra’: 20, 195, 348, 418, 576, 580 Umm al-Quwain: 418 Umm ‘Aqrubba: 487 Umm Dabāġīyah: 20 Umm Qusēr: 22, 25, 27, 44, 47, 48, 52, 53, 55, 56
Unqi: 462, 465, 466, 470 Ur: 86, 219, 236, 244, 283, 418, 562 Urkeš: 77, 83, 86, 122, 133, 218, 259, 347, 350 Ursa’um: 79 Uršu: 375 Uršum: 77 Uruk: 64, 66, 84 ‘Usiyeh: 561 Uškānu: 330 Ušnatu: 309, 310, 313, 465 Warka: 52 Waššukanni: 268, 339, 340, 346, 347, 349, 351, 355, 453, 475, 476 Wreide: 167, 175 Yabrūd: 10 Yakaltum: 361 Yamhad: 86, 434 Yamḫad: 274, 281, 285, 298, 309, 348, 376, 383, 385, 386, 391, 435–437, 511 Yarim Tepe: 25, 28, 62 Yarım Höyük: 166, 167 Yassıhöyük: 562 Yazılıkaya: 517, 520 Yesemek: 518, 522, 526 Yorgan Tepe: 348 Yunus: 509, 574, 575 Zaḫiran: 82 Zaidān: 34, 35, 62 Zalpa: 275 Zamāḫu: 485, 487 Zeytinbahçeli Höyük: 62 Zeytinli Bahçe: 165, 166, 167, 173 Zincirli: 462, 499, 500, 541, 554, 559, 560, 563, 564 Ziyāda: 34, 35, 38, 113 Ziyāde: 44, 47 Ziyaret Tepe: 347, 464
